Cycling is officially great!

Bournemouth Echo: Cycling is officially great! Cycling is officially great!

Cycling is the best way to get around town, if it wasn't then the cycle messenger wouldn't exist. It works anywhere where there's an urban environment that gets clogged by motorised traffic.

It's the fastest way to get from one side of town to the other, it's cheaper than driving, better for the planet, healthier, more fun and it reduces congestion. Hurrah for the bicycle!

Of course there are downsides, the weather can be one of them, but then cycling in the rain can actually be quite nice. The only weather that really bugs me when I'm on the bike is wind. Grinding into a headwind for miles can be very demoralising!

From my perspective the biggest danger to cyclists is other people, specifically other road users who are generally sitting in a motorised vehicle, completely oblivious to what's going on outside.

You only have to look at the footage from the Tour de France over the weekend to see what happens when a driver isn't paying attention. Instead of potentially scraping his car against a tree, the driver of this vehicle swerves into the road and takes out two riders!

It's a shocking piece of driving and it's lucky that both riders were able to continue and finish the stage, despite one of them being thrown into a barbed wire fence!

It was also very sad to see Bradley Wiggins out of the race with a broken collarbone, he was on excellent form this year and many people were hoping to see him on the podium in Paris; I just hope he can recover fully.

To be involved in a pile up that ends your race so early on must be incredibly frustrating for him, especially after all the preparation that is focussed around this one race.

Following last week’s blog, I asked for some feedback and I got some! I am hoping to incorporate a few suggestions as I go along.

One point that was made was about where to ride ensuring that you don't break the law. One place to get good information is www.gettingabout.info.

As well as being able to download copies of the latest cycling maps of the area it also gives useful information regarding cycling safety and initiatives as well as links to various cycling related organisations.

There was another interesting comment against last week's blog by Gooby. He (or is it she?) separates "cyclists" from "bike riders" and I completely understand his point. The statement made was this "...bike rider on a barely rideable bike with no brakes and 2 sizes too small.

Smoking his cigarette and riding his little sister’s bike, he crossed 4 lanes of traffic by weaving through the traffic against the flow. A cyclist would never behave in this way."

When I started this blog I made the same differentiation, but now I have come to realise that it's only "cyclists" that do this, to everyone else a person on a bike is a cyclist!

Everyone in a car is a driver, everyone on a motorbike is a biker and everyone walking is a pedestrian. We are all in this together irrespective of how much our bike is worth, what we wear or how we ride.

The bad cyclists give us a bad name, just the same way as the bad drivers give all drivers a bad name, the only difference is that cyclists are in the minority and so get picked on!

Think happy thoughts!

Based on information supplied by David Brown.

Comments (91)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:59am Tue 12 Jul 11

hammer says...

"cyclists are in the minority and so get picked on". What are you talking about? There should be an information leaflet regarding cycling on the road and how not to break the law!
"cyclists are in the minority and so get picked on". What are you talking about? There should be an information leaflet regarding cycling on the road and how not to break the law! hammer
  • Score: 0

10:23am Tue 12 Jul 11

peter_c says...

Same old story hammer - change the flaming record, its getting old! I'm not advocating dangerous cycling - far from it, as I'm the first to politely have a chat with the bike riders who are on the pavements etc - but your always so anti-bike is it any wonder everyone thinks your a troll? And yes I know about your child (I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, as I have 2 boys of my own), but come on, we aren't all bad. As I've said before - and many others agree with me - they're are bad riders, bad drivers, bad pedestrians et al in all walks of life - just ignore them and move on. And David, spot on as usual.
Same old story hammer - change the flaming record, its getting old! I'm not advocating dangerous cycling - far from it, as I'm the first to politely have a chat with the bike riders who are on the pavements etc - but your always so anti-bike is it any wonder everyone thinks your a troll? And yes I know about your child (I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, as I have 2 boys of my own), but come on, we aren't all bad. As I've said before - and many others agree with me - they're are bad riders, bad drivers, bad pedestrians et al in all walks of life - just ignore them and move on. And David, spot on as usual. peter_c
  • Score: 0

10:59am Tue 12 Jul 11

Gooby says...

I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists.

99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion.

To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye.

The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David)

Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.
I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling. Gooby
  • Score: 0

11:14am Tue 12 Jul 11

hammer says...

peter_c wrote:
Same old story hammer - change the flaming record, its getting old! I'm not advocating dangerous cycling - far from it, as I'm the first to politely have a chat with the bike riders who are on the pavements etc - but your always so anti-bike is it any wonder everyone thinks your a troll? And yes I know about your child (I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, as I have 2 boys of my own), but come on, we aren't all bad. As I've said before - and many others agree with me - they're are bad riders, bad drivers, bad pedestrians et al in all walks of life - just ignore them and move on. And David, spot on as usual.
I think it is called Freedom of Speech! Oh dear all of you do get your knickers in a twist (or should I say shorts) and SOME of the cyclists attitude to this blog only mirrors their attitude on the road! Peter C until you experience a son dying you have not got a clue what it was like and is like! I have also said before there are bad riders, bad drivers and bad motorcylists! I am not talking about the majority of cyclists who are responsible, I am talking about the "rogue" cyclists!
[quote][p][bold]peter_c[/bold] wrote: Same old story hammer - change the flaming record, its getting old! I'm not advocating dangerous cycling - far from it, as I'm the first to politely have a chat with the bike riders who are on the pavements etc - but your always so anti-bike is it any wonder everyone thinks your a troll? And yes I know about your child (I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, as I have 2 boys of my own), but come on, we aren't all bad. As I've said before - and many others agree with me - they're are bad riders, bad drivers, bad pedestrians et al in all walks of life - just ignore them and move on. And David, spot on as usual.[/p][/quote]I think it is called Freedom of Speech! Oh dear all of you do get your knickers in a twist (or should I say shorts) and SOME of the cyclists attitude to this blog only mirrors their attitude on the road! Peter C until you experience a son dying you have not got a clue what it was like and is like! I have also said before there are bad riders, bad drivers and bad motorcylists! I am not talking about the majority of cyclists who are responsible, I am talking about the "rogue" cyclists! hammer
  • Score: 0

11:39am Tue 12 Jul 11

peter_c says...

And i pray that never happens. Its just that all you seem to 'attack' (if thats the right term) are bike riders, who you seem to lump in with the good cyclists. Daft thing is that as they're are fewer cyclists on the road than car drivers (and NO THEY ARE NOT ALL ON THE PAVEMENT BEFORE SOME WISE A$$ COMMENT COMES BACK!!) people see there 'misdeeds' more because they stand out more than cars. FWIW I'm in complete agreement with you that rogue riders need clamping down on, as it affects the good cyclists (which I count myself one of) as motorists / peds attitudes are 'oh look another lycra lout', rather than 'oh look, someone riding well and keeping fit'. It really irks me thats all.
And i pray that never happens. Its just that all you seem to 'attack' (if thats the right term) are bike riders, who you seem to lump in with the good cyclists. Daft thing is that as they're are fewer cyclists on the road than car drivers (and NO THEY ARE NOT ALL ON THE PAVEMENT BEFORE SOME WISE A$$ COMMENT COMES BACK!!) people see there 'misdeeds' more because they stand out more than cars. FWIW I'm in complete agreement with you that rogue riders need clamping down on, as it affects the good cyclists (which I count myself one of) as motorists / peds attitudes are 'oh look another lycra lout', rather than 'oh look, someone riding well and keeping fit'. It really irks me thats all. peter_c
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Tue 12 Jul 11

cyclejim says...

Hammer, you say there are bad cyclists, motorcyclists and car drivers etc, but it's almost exclusively on cycling forums and towards cyclists that you vent your traffic frustrations. Your original comment could have been posted on any number of recent articles of accidents and hospital visits caused by motor vehicle collisions, but no - it's prejudice against cyclists and related articles.
Hammer, you say there are bad cyclists, motorcyclists and car drivers etc, but it's almost exclusively on cycling forums and towards cyclists that you vent your traffic frustrations. Your original comment could have been posted on any number of recent articles of accidents and hospital visits caused by motor vehicle collisions, but no - it's prejudice against cyclists and related articles. cyclejim
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Tue 12 Jul 11

hammer says...

cyclejim wrote:
Hammer, you say there are bad cyclists, motorcyclists and car drivers etc, but it's almost exclusively on cycling forums and towards cyclists that you vent your traffic frustrations. Your original comment could have been posted on any number of recent articles of accidents and hospital visits caused by motor vehicle collisions, but no - it's prejudice against cyclists and related articles.
It has nothing to do with "traffic frustrations" I just don't understand why SOME cyclists (a cyclist being much more vulnerable on the road) take unnecessary risks with their lives i.e. going through red traffic lights on crossroads - riding with arms folded - using a mobile phone - having a coffee! I advised two cyclists on a pavement cycling at speed (which I had to jump clear of) that they should not be on the pavement and all I got was a torrent of abuse!
[quote][p][bold]cyclejim[/bold] wrote: Hammer, you say there are bad cyclists, motorcyclists and car drivers etc, but it's almost exclusively on cycling forums and towards cyclists that you vent your traffic frustrations. Your original comment could have been posted on any number of recent articles of accidents and hospital visits caused by motor vehicle collisions, but no - it's prejudice against cyclists and related articles.[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with "traffic frustrations" I just don't understand why SOME cyclists (a cyclist being much more vulnerable on the road) take unnecessary risks with their lives i.e. going through red traffic lights on crossroads - riding with arms folded - using a mobile phone - having a coffee! I advised two cyclists on a pavement cycling at speed (which I had to jump clear of) that they should not be on the pavement and all I got was a torrent of abuse! hammer
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Tue 12 Jul 11

Ash_69 says...

hammer wrote:
peter_c wrote: Same old story hammer - change the flaming record, its getting old! I'm not advocating dangerous cycling - far from it, as I'm the first to politely have a chat with the bike riders who are on the pavements etc - but your always so anti-bike is it any wonder everyone thinks your a troll? And yes I know about your child (I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, as I have 2 boys of my own), but come on, we aren't all bad. As I've said before - and many others agree with me - they're are bad riders, bad drivers, bad pedestrians et al in all walks of life - just ignore them and move on. And David, spot on as usual.
I think it is called Freedom of Speech! Oh dear all of you do get your knickers in a twist (or should I say shorts) and SOME of the cyclists attitude to this blog only mirrors their attitude on the road! Peter C until you experience a son dying you have not got a clue what it was like and is like! I have also said before there are bad riders, bad drivers and bad motorcylists! I am not talking about the majority of cyclists who are responsible, I am talking about the "rogue" cyclists!
Talk about freedom of speech - Who got my comment removed then?
.
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peter_c[/bold] wrote: Same old story hammer - change the flaming record, its getting old! I'm not advocating dangerous cycling - far from it, as I'm the first to politely have a chat with the bike riders who are on the pavements etc - but your always so anti-bike is it any wonder everyone thinks your a troll? And yes I know about your child (I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, as I have 2 boys of my own), but come on, we aren't all bad. As I've said before - and many others agree with me - they're are bad riders, bad drivers, bad pedestrians et al in all walks of life - just ignore them and move on. And David, spot on as usual.[/p][/quote]I think it is called Freedom of Speech! Oh dear all of you do get your knickers in a twist (or should I say shorts) and SOME of the cyclists attitude to this blog only mirrors their attitude on the road! Peter C until you experience a son dying you have not got a clue what it was like and is like! I have also said before there are bad riders, bad drivers and bad motorcylists! I am not talking about the majority of cyclists who are responsible, I am talking about the "rogue" cyclists![/p][/quote]Talk about freedom of speech - Who got my comment removed then? . Ash_69
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Tue 12 Jul 11

In Absentia says...

I would agree with David Brown that cycling is a great way to get around and it's good for you!

However, I must take issue that it's the fastest way of getting from one side of town to the other. If we're talking about getting from Bmth to Poole, then 10 minutes on the train easily beats everything else in terms of time and safety, hence the numbers of people taking their bikes on the train this morning along with me.
I would agree with David Brown that cycling is a great way to get around and it's good for you! However, I must take issue that it's the fastest way of getting from one side of town to the other. If we're talking about getting from Bmth to Poole, then 10 minutes on the train easily beats everything else in terms of time and safety, hence the numbers of people taking their bikes on the train this morning along with me. In Absentia
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Tue 12 Jul 11

Gooby says...

@Hammer
"freedom of speech" comes with legal and moral caveats. It also implies that you have something to say.

It is not a "cover all" expression to inflict a rant / troll.
@Hammer "freedom of speech" comes with legal and moral caveats. It also implies that you have something to say. It is not a "cover all" expression to inflict a rant / troll. Gooby
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Tue 12 Jul 11

cyclejim says...

It must be hard for someone who recalls on here as many negative encounters with cyclists in a week as the rest of us do in a year. We all see various modes of transport not setting a perfect example on a daily basis, but the number of times you've either been struck or taken evasive action to avoid being run over is terribly unlucky.
It must be hard for someone who recalls on here as many negative encounters with cyclists in a week as the rest of us do in a year. We all see various modes of transport not setting a perfect example on a daily basis, but the number of times you've either been struck or taken evasive action to avoid being run over is terribly unlucky. cyclejim
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Tue 12 Jul 11

hammer says...

Wrong place at the wrong time maybe but if you did a survey along Whitecliffe there are quite a few people who regularly walk along their with or without dogs who have encountered the same or even worse i.e. the cyclist that broke his arm four weeks ago when speeding and ending up on the rocks when trying to take evasive action avoiding three ladies walking their dogs! Although I must say that the speeding cyclist that went over his handlebars to avoid my dog was very pleasant and I hope he has recovered!
Wrong place at the wrong time maybe but if you did a survey along Whitecliffe there are quite a few people who regularly walk along their with or without dogs who have encountered the same or even worse i.e. the cyclist that broke his arm four weeks ago when speeding and ending up on the rocks when trying to take evasive action avoiding three ladies walking their dogs! Although I must say that the speeding cyclist that went over his handlebars to avoid my dog was very pleasant and I hope he has recovered! hammer
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Tue 12 Jul 11

not a fatty says...

So hammer,the only injuries you know of at Whitecliff have been to cyclists?
Seems like reason enought to ban them.
While cycling is the best way to get around,it's not official ,officially they are banned.
One piece of sound advice for riding in this area is ride where you want,we've got amazing footpaths,golf courses are good,and everyone is too lazy to get out of their cars or houses,so the paths are empty,enjoy!
Better blog this week,fairly positive,although I still find my bike efficient into the wind,you just have to do an aero tuck,and I've hit 30 mph on the prom with the wind :).
So hammer,the only injuries you know of at Whitecliff have been to cyclists? Seems like reason enought to ban them. While cycling is the best way to get around,it's not official ,officially they are banned. One piece of sound advice for riding in this area is ride where you want,we've got amazing footpaths,golf courses are good,and everyone is too lazy to get out of their cars or houses,so the paths are empty,enjoy! Better blog this week,fairly positive,although I still find my bike efficient into the wind,you just have to do an aero tuck,and I've hit 30 mph on the prom with the wind :). not a fatty
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Tue 12 Jul 11

hammer says...

not a fatty wrote:
So hammer,the only injuries you know of at Whitecliff have been to cyclists? Seems like reason enought to ban them. While cycling is the best way to get around,it's not official ,officially they are banned. One piece of sound advice for riding in this area is ride where you want,we've got amazing footpaths,golf courses are good,and everyone is too lazy to get out of their cars or houses,so the paths are empty,enjoy! Better blog this week,fairly positive,although I still find my bike efficient into the wind,you just have to do an aero tuck,and I've hit 30 mph on the prom with the wind :).
No actually I spoke to a woman last week whose dog had to go to a vet for treatment after a collision with a cyclist who just rode on and did not stop! I also don't think I mentioned anything about banning cycling! My daughter competes in triathlons and iron men competitions. I am not anti-cycling just anti-idiot cyclists!

So when doing the "aero tuck" how can you see where you are going? If my memory serves me right the cyclist on the Upton bypass who got killed last year might have been adopting the same position when he hit the parked car!
[quote][p][bold]not a fatty[/bold] wrote: So hammer,the only injuries you know of at Whitecliff have been to cyclists? Seems like reason enought to ban them. While cycling is the best way to get around,it's not official ,officially they are banned. One piece of sound advice for riding in this area is ride where you want,we've got amazing footpaths,golf courses are good,and everyone is too lazy to get out of their cars or houses,so the paths are empty,enjoy! Better blog this week,fairly positive,although I still find my bike efficient into the wind,you just have to do an aero tuck,and I've hit 30 mph on the prom with the wind :).[/p][/quote]No actually I spoke to a woman last week whose dog had to go to a vet for treatment after a collision with a cyclist who just rode on and did not stop! I also don't think I mentioned anything about banning cycling! My daughter competes in triathlons and iron men competitions. I am not anti-cycling just anti-idiot cyclists! So when doing the "aero tuck" how can you see where you are going? If my memory serves me right the cyclist on the Upton bypass who got killed last year might have been adopting the same position when he hit the parked car! hammer
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Tue 12 Jul 11

Gooby says...

As a dog owner, it is my responsibility to keep my animal under control and not that of a cyclist. So Hammer, your point is that some lady is incompetant and can not control her dog on the prom.

You make the point that 3 women walking abrest with thier dogs (define inconsiderate?) and in an effort to avoid them the cyclist is injured.

You still maintain the cyclists are a problem? You are aware of what you are saying? I am just asking for a minimum level of insight....
As a dog owner, it is my responsibility to keep my animal under control and not that of a cyclist. So Hammer, your point is that some lady is incompetant and can not control her dog on the prom. You make the point that 3 women walking abrest with thier dogs (define inconsiderate?) and in an effort to avoid them the cyclist is injured. You still maintain the cyclists are a problem? You are aware of what you are saying? I am just asking for a minimum level of insight.... Gooby
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Tue 12 Jul 11

Baysider says...

"He (or is it she?) separates "cyclists" from "bike riders" and I completely understand his point"...

...really? I don't understand it at all and no need to look too far for the reason when it comes from the source it does is there?

What about the 24 carrot pratt on his Specialized i.e. expensive, road bike (with all the gear on) who entered the roadabout this morning at about 25-30 miles an hour without even pausing? Is he a cyclist or a bike rider, I'm confused?

If I'd taken the same attitude to the roundabout as he did he'd be in hospital now (or the morgue), I'd be in Bournemouth police station, both our families would be distraught and Gooby et al would still be saying that cyclists/bike riders/whatever you want to call them are victimised and deserve more respect and protection.

Code word = less race.
"He (or is it she?) separates "cyclists" from "bike riders" and I completely understand his point"... ...really? I don't understand it at all and no need to look too far for the reason when it comes from the source it does is there? What about the 24 carrot pratt on his Specialized i.e. expensive, road bike (with all the gear on) who entered the roadabout this morning at about 25-30 miles an hour without even pausing? Is he a cyclist or a bike rider, I'm confused? If I'd taken the same attitude to the roundabout as he did he'd be in hospital now (or the morgue), I'd be in Bournemouth police station, both our families would be distraught and Gooby et al would still be saying that cyclists/bike riders/whatever you want to call them are victimised and deserve more respect and protection. Code word = less race. Baysider
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Tue 12 Jul 11

weevie says...

S'Funny, years before these blogs, these comments - I, as a regular user of sandbanks ferry would curse the manners and nature of the lycra-yobs who boarded the ferry (ahead of me and my young family try to board on foot), somehow they seemed distant and aloof - a law unto themselves. I can quite see how Whitecliff, by extension gets the same problems.

But I HAVE to say, I cycle and drive through B'mth everyday of every week - it's the drivers you need to fear, believe me.
Cycling, by its nature almost makes you become a rebel - you just HAVE to, to stay alive, either that or become a real bloody nuisance in the middle of the road, flags all over the place etc etc, and you know what? In daylight it should NEVER be necessary to wear day-glo thingumies - can you honestly say you can't see well enough to see a bike? It's all got very, very silly and will not change until the emphasis, the legal, emphasis switches away from cars.
S'Funny, years before these blogs, these comments - I, as a regular user of sandbanks ferry would curse the manners and nature of the lycra-yobs who boarded the ferry (ahead of me and my young family try to board on foot), somehow they seemed distant and aloof - a law unto themselves. I can quite see how Whitecliff, by extension gets the same problems. But I HAVE to say, I cycle and drive through B'mth everyday of every week - it's the drivers you need to fear, believe me. Cycling, by its nature almost makes you become a rebel - you just HAVE to, to stay alive, either that or become a real bloody nuisance in the middle of the road, flags all over the place etc etc, and you know what? In daylight it should NEVER be necessary to wear day-glo thingumies - can you honestly say you can't see well enough to see a bike? It's all got very, very silly and will not change until the emphasis, the legal, emphasis switches away from cars. weevie
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Tue 12 Jul 11

weevie says...

By the way, take a trip along Wallisdown road (from Mountbatten Arms end) - look North, metres and metres of land - no cycle path. get to the roundabout, (junction with Alder road) go across - now it gets interesting, take a GOOD look South - all the way down to the 2nd roundabout - there's about 10m of unused land doing absolutely nothing, and no cycle path.
What a fabulous way to take the strain off of the traffic along here?
You heard it here first.
By the way, take a trip along Wallisdown road (from Mountbatten Arms end) - look North, metres and metres of land - no cycle path. get to the roundabout, (junction with Alder road) go across - now it gets interesting, take a GOOD look South - all the way down to the 2nd roundabout - there's about 10m of unused land doing absolutely nothing, and no cycle path. What a fabulous way to take the strain off of the traffic along here? You heard it here first. weevie
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Tue 12 Jul 11

armyboy says...

going to work in middle of road to turn right indicated, on a bridge traffic works in front ,what do two lads in a car do but overtake on the bridge . reported to police told me if it happens again to phone straight away and not wait . so if your the driver of red car S61 JUD watch out who you cut up .
going to work in middle of road to turn right indicated, on a bridge traffic works in front ,what do two lads in a car do but overtake on the bridge . reported to police told me if it happens again to phone straight away and not wait . so if your the driver of red car S61 JUD watch out who you cut up . armyboy
  • Score: 0

11:56pm Tue 12 Jul 11

Oh I do like to be says...

Dear David
Could you please validate your opening paragraph with some examples, as I am unaware of any bicycle courier firms that are in regular service in the Poole/Bournemouth/Ch
ristchurch area. Unless you are making reference to the thriving services that operate in the capital, in which case the basis of your article with reference to this East Dorset conurbation is probably flawed.
Thanks,
OIDLTB, BTS
Dear David Could you please validate your opening paragraph with some examples, as I am unaware of any bicycle courier firms that are in regular service in the Poole/Bournemouth/Ch ristchurch area. Unless you are making reference to the thriving services that operate in the capital, in which case the basis of your article with reference to this East Dorset conurbation is probably flawed. Thanks, OIDLTB, BTS Oh I do like to be
  • Score: 0

8:29am Wed 13 Jul 11

cyclejim says...

For someone whose daughter has completed an Ironman (incredible achievement by the way, full of respect for anyone who has done so), some of Hammer's comments here and elsewhere show a distinct lack of understanding about cycling as a sport and statements that are quite simply incorrect.
.
armboy, weevie, baysider - people are capable of making mistakes be it carelessly or recklessly and as I said above we all see people on bikes, in cars and whatever else do things that perhaps they shouldn't. But while an errant cyclist is annoying, an errant driver is a potential killer.
For someone whose daughter has completed an Ironman (incredible achievement by the way, full of respect for anyone who has done so), some of Hammer's comments here and elsewhere show a distinct lack of understanding about cycling as a sport and statements that are quite simply incorrect. . armboy, weevie, baysider - people are capable of making mistakes be it carelessly or recklessly and as I said above we all see people on bikes, in cars and whatever else do things that perhaps they shouldn't. But while an errant cyclist is annoying, an errant driver is a potential killer. cyclejim
  • Score: 0

9:05am Wed 13 Jul 11

hammer says...

cyclejim wrote:
For someone whose daughter has completed an Ironman (incredible achievement by the way, full of respect for anyone who has done so), some of Hammer's comments here and elsewhere show a distinct lack of understanding about cycling as a sport and statements that are quite simply incorrect. . armboy, weevie, baysider - people are capable of making mistakes be it carelessly or recklessly and as I said above we all see people on bikes, in cars and whatever else do things that perhaps they shouldn't. But while an errant cyclist is annoying, an errant driver is a potential killer.
I did not mention cycling as a sport! I have great respect for "sport" cyclists as my daughter is one! I am talking about cyclists who risk their lives unnecessarily and I obey the rules of the road where cyclists are concerned believe me..........
[quote][p][bold]cyclejim[/bold] wrote: For someone whose daughter has completed an Ironman (incredible achievement by the way, full of respect for anyone who has done so), some of Hammer's comments here and elsewhere show a distinct lack of understanding about cycling as a sport and statements that are quite simply incorrect. . armboy, weevie, baysider - people are capable of making mistakes be it carelessly or recklessly and as I said above we all see people on bikes, in cars and whatever else do things that perhaps they shouldn't. But while an errant cyclist is annoying, an errant driver is a potential killer.[/p][/quote]I did not mention cycling as a sport! I have great respect for "sport" cyclists as my daughter is one! I am talking about cyclists who risk their lives unnecessarily and I obey the rules of the road where cyclists are concerned believe me.......... hammer
  • Score: 0

9:14am Wed 13 Jul 11

hammer says...

Gooby wrote:
As a dog owner, it is my responsibility to keep my animal under control and not that of a cyclist. So Hammer, your point is that some lady is incompetant and can not control her dog on the prom. You make the point that 3 women walking abrest with thier dogs (define inconsiderate?) and in an effort to avoid them the cyclist is injured. You still maintain the cyclists are a problem? You are aware of what you are saying? I am just asking for a minimum level of insight....
Do you know what I can't be bothered to answer!
[quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: As a dog owner, it is my responsibility to keep my animal under control and not that of a cyclist. So Hammer, your point is that some lady is incompetant and can not control her dog on the prom. You make the point that 3 women walking abrest with thier dogs (define inconsiderate?) and in an effort to avoid them the cyclist is injured. You still maintain the cyclists are a problem? You are aware of what you are saying? I am just asking for a minimum level of insight....[/p][/quote]Do you know what I can't be bothered to answer! hammer
  • Score: 0

11:11am Wed 13 Jul 11

mikey2gorgeous says...

Interesting to note that in the last year, injuries reported to the Echo caused by dogs have been far worse and more frequent than any caused by bikes - especially when you add in Hammer's report above.

Whatever you may think of it, the path along Whitecliff is a shared use cycle/pedestrian path - letting your dog run amok on it is no better than letting it run around on the road.
Interesting to note that in the last year, injuries reported to the Echo caused by dogs have been far worse and more frequent than any caused by bikes - especially when you add in Hammer's report above. Whatever you may think of it, the path along Whitecliff is a shared use cycle/pedestrian path - letting your dog run amok on it is no better than letting it run around on the road. mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Wed 13 Jul 11

hammer says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Interesting to note that in the last year, injuries reported to the Echo caused by dogs have been far worse and more frequent than any caused by bikes - especially when you add in Hammer's report above. Whatever you may think of it, the path along Whitecliff is a shared use cycle/pedestrian path - letting your dog run amok on it is no better than letting it run around on the road.
The operative word here is SHARED and the speed limit for cyclists is 10 miles an hour with PRIORITY to pedestrians but unfortunately SOME of the rogue cyclists do not obey those rules I am afraid which results in accidents. If I see a cyclist approaching (but unfortunately I have not got eyes in the back of my head) I ask them to watch out for my dog which most of them do but if a cyclist is speeding and coming from behind you cannot take evasive action as you cannot hear them approach. Again the considerate cyclists will ring their bells.
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: Interesting to note that in the last year, injuries reported to the Echo caused by dogs have been far worse and more frequent than any caused by bikes - especially when you add in Hammer's report above. Whatever you may think of it, the path along Whitecliff is a shared use cycle/pedestrian path - letting your dog run amok on it is no better than letting it run around on the road.[/p][/quote]The operative word here is SHARED and the speed limit for cyclists is 10 miles an hour with PRIORITY to pedestrians but unfortunately SOME of the rogue cyclists do not obey those rules I am afraid which results in accidents. If I see a cyclist approaching (but unfortunately I have not got eyes in the back of my head) I ask them to watch out for my dog which most of them do but if a cyclist is speeding and coming from behind you cannot take evasive action as you cannot hear them approach. Again the considerate cyclists will ring their bells. hammer
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Wed 13 Jul 11

mikey2gorgeous says...

hammer wrote:
Wrong place at the wrong time maybe but if you did a survey along Whitecliffe there are quite a few people who regularly walk along their with or without dogs who have encountered the same or even worse i.e. the cyclist that broke his arm four weeks ago when speeding and ending up on the rocks when trying to take evasive action avoiding three ladies walking their dogs! Although I must say that the speeding cyclist that went over his handlebars to avoid my dog was very pleasant and I hope he has recovered!
Was your dog on the lead at the time?
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: Wrong place at the wrong time maybe but if you did a survey along Whitecliffe there are quite a few people who regularly walk along their with or without dogs who have encountered the same or even worse i.e. the cyclist that broke his arm four weeks ago when speeding and ending up on the rocks when trying to take evasive action avoiding three ladies walking their dogs! Although I must say that the speeding cyclist that went over his handlebars to avoid my dog was very pleasant and I hope he has recovered![/p][/quote]Was your dog on the lead at the time? mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Wed 13 Jul 11

hammer says...

No my dog was not on the lead at the time. I usually stay on the grass out of the way of the path but as my dog likes a swim I have to go across the path to get to the water! Cyclists know that 99% of dogs at Whitecliffe are not on leads but that does not seem to deter SOME cyclists from speeding along without any care to pedestrians and dogs which unfortunately leads to cyclists and dogs being injured.
No my dog was not on the lead at the time. I usually stay on the grass out of the way of the path but as my dog likes a swim I have to go across the path to get to the water! Cyclists know that 99% of dogs at Whitecliffe are not on leads but that does not seem to deter SOME cyclists from speeding along without any care to pedestrians and dogs which unfortunately leads to cyclists and dogs being injured. hammer
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Wed 13 Jul 11

T.BH1 says...

hammer wrote:
not a fatty wrote:
So hammer,the only injuries you know of at Whitecliff have been to cyclists? Seems like reason enought to ban them. While cycling is the best way to get around,it's not official ,officially they are banned. One piece of sound advice for riding in this area is ride where you want,we've got amazing footpaths,golf courses are good,and everyone is too lazy to get out of their cars or houses,so the paths are empty,enjoy! Better blog this week,fairly positive,although I still find my bike efficient into the wind,you just have to do an aero tuck,and I've hit 30 mph on the prom with the wind :).
No actually I spoke to a woman last week whose dog had to go to a vet for treatment after a collision with a cyclist who just rode on and did not stop! I also don't think I mentioned anything about banning cycling! My daughter competes in triathlons and iron men competitions. I am not anti-cycling just anti-idiot cyclists!

So when doing the "aero tuck" how can you see where you are going? If my memory serves me right the cyclist on the Upton bypass who got killed last year might have been adopting the same position when he hit the parked car!
You are a horrible person.
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]not a fatty[/bold] wrote: So hammer,the only injuries you know of at Whitecliff have been to cyclists? Seems like reason enought to ban them. While cycling is the best way to get around,it's not official ,officially they are banned. One piece of sound advice for riding in this area is ride where you want,we've got amazing footpaths,golf courses are good,and everyone is too lazy to get out of their cars or houses,so the paths are empty,enjoy! Better blog this week,fairly positive,although I still find my bike efficient into the wind,you just have to do an aero tuck,and I've hit 30 mph on the prom with the wind :).[/p][/quote]No actually I spoke to a woman last week whose dog had to go to a vet for treatment after a collision with a cyclist who just rode on and did not stop! I also don't think I mentioned anything about banning cycling! My daughter competes in triathlons and iron men competitions. I am not anti-cycling just anti-idiot cyclists! So when doing the "aero tuck" how can you see where you are going? If my memory serves me right the cyclist on the Upton bypass who got killed last year might have been adopting the same position when he hit the parked car![/p][/quote]You are a horrible person. T.BH1
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Wed 13 Jul 11

tracy m says...

Gooby wrote:
I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.
I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby.

Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours.

It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it?
[quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.[/p][/quote]I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby. Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours. It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it? tracy m
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Wed 13 Jul 11

pete0404 says...

The operative word here is SHARED and the speed limit for cyclists is 10 miles an hour with PRIORITY to pedestrians

err how can they quote a max speed limit on signs when cyclists do not have to have a speedo. is that like saying the world is square
The operative word here is SHARED and the speed limit for cyclists is 10 miles an hour with PRIORITY to pedestrians err how can they quote a max speed limit on signs when cyclists do not have to have a speedo. is that like saying the world is square pete0404
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Wed 13 Jul 11

tracy m says...

armyboy wrote:
going to work in middle of road to turn right indicated, on a bridge traffic works in front ,what do two lads in a car do but overtake on the bridge . reported to police told me if it happens again to phone straight away and not wait . so if your the driver of red car S61 JUD watch out who you cut up .
What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists!
[quote][p][bold]armyboy[/bold] wrote: going to work in middle of road to turn right indicated, on a bridge traffic works in front ,what do two lads in a car do but overtake on the bridge . reported to police told me if it happens again to phone straight away and not wait . so if your the driver of red car S61 JUD watch out who you cut up .[/p][/quote]What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists! tracy m
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Wed 13 Jul 11

tracy m says...

What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists!
What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists! tracy m
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Wed 13 Jul 11

ranger_bob says...

tracy m wrote:
Gooby wrote:
I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.
I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby.

Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours.

It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it?
Does that mean Hammer has to leave everybody else alone rather than just slating cyclists (except her daughter) and whining on about mutts not being allowed to run around unchecked?
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.[/p][/quote]I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby. Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours. It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it?[/p][/quote]Does that mean Hammer has to leave everybody else alone rather than just slating cyclists (except her daughter) and whining on about mutts not being allowed to run around unchecked? ranger_bob
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Wed 13 Jul 11

The Timelord says...

Lansdowne to Wallisdown cross roads quicker every time in the rush hour but watch out for the drivers (motorists are a higher breed to drivers - just like bike rider (low) to cyclist(high)) determined to use the cycle and bus lanes to stop you getting through.....
Lansdowne to Wallisdown cross roads quicker every time in the rush hour but watch out for the drivers (motorists are a higher breed to drivers - just like bike rider (low) to cyclist(high)) determined to use the cycle and bus lanes to stop you getting through..... The Timelord
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Wed 13 Jul 11

tracy m says...

Maybe if decent cyclists had a campaign and "hammered" (excuse the pun) wrong doing cyclists rather than be so defensive it might prove very successful. Errant cyclists may take more onotice f fellow cyclist than pedestrians etc and at the same time the cycling fraternity may gain more respect from the rest of the community for not being so defensive.
Maybe if decent cyclists had a campaign and "hammered" (excuse the pun) wrong doing cyclists rather than be so defensive it might prove very successful. Errant cyclists may take more onotice f fellow cyclist than pedestrians etc and at the same time the cycling fraternity may gain more respect from the rest of the community for not being so defensive. tracy m
  • Score: 0

12:12am Thu 14 Jul 11

s-pb2 says...

tracy m wrote:
Maybe if decent cyclists had a campaign and "hammered" (excuse the pun) wrong doing cyclists rather than be so defensive it might prove very successful. Errant cyclists may take more onotice f fellow cyclist than pedestrians etc and at the same time the cycling fraternity may gain more respect from the rest of the community for not being so defensive.
I didnt realise i was part of a fraternity for getting on a bicycle and needed to gain respect from the local community, all i was doing was going to the shops!
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: Maybe if decent cyclists had a campaign and "hammered" (excuse the pun) wrong doing cyclists rather than be so defensive it might prove very successful. Errant cyclists may take more onotice f fellow cyclist than pedestrians etc and at the same time the cycling fraternity may gain more respect from the rest of the community for not being so defensive.[/p][/quote]I didnt realise i was part of a fraternity for getting on a bicycle and needed to gain respect from the local community, all i was doing was going to the shops! s-pb2
  • Score: 0

8:42am Thu 14 Jul 11

hammer says...

T.BH1 wrote:
hammer wrote:
not a fatty wrote: So hammer,the only injuries you know of at Whitecliff have been to cyclists? Seems like reason enought to ban them. While cycling is the best way to get around,it's not official ,officially they are banned. One piece of sound advice for riding in this area is ride where you want,we've got amazing footpaths,golf courses are good,and everyone is too lazy to get out of their cars or houses,so the paths are empty,enjoy! Better blog this week,fairly positive,although I still find my bike efficient into the wind,you just have to do an aero tuck,and I've hit 30 mph on the prom with the wind :).
No actually I spoke to a woman last week whose dog had to go to a vet for treatment after a collision with a cyclist who just rode on and did not stop! I also don't think I mentioned anything about banning cycling! My daughter competes in triathlons and iron men competitions. I am not anti-cycling just anti-idiot cyclists! So when doing the "aero tuck" how can you see where you are going? If my memory serves me right the cyclist on the Upton bypass who got killed last year might have been adopting the same position when he hit the parked car!
You are a horrible person.
Why am I a horrible person? Don't quite understand that comment really.....
[quote][p][bold]T.BH1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]not a fatty[/bold] wrote: So hammer,the only injuries you know of at Whitecliff have been to cyclists? Seems like reason enought to ban them. While cycling is the best way to get around,it's not official ,officially they are banned. One piece of sound advice for riding in this area is ride where you want,we've got amazing footpaths,golf courses are good,and everyone is too lazy to get out of their cars or houses,so the paths are empty,enjoy! Better blog this week,fairly positive,although I still find my bike efficient into the wind,you just have to do an aero tuck,and I've hit 30 mph on the prom with the wind :).[/p][/quote]No actually I spoke to a woman last week whose dog had to go to a vet for treatment after a collision with a cyclist who just rode on and did not stop! I also don't think I mentioned anything about banning cycling! My daughter competes in triathlons and iron men competitions. I am not anti-cycling just anti-idiot cyclists! So when doing the "aero tuck" how can you see where you are going? If my memory serves me right the cyclist on the Upton bypass who got killed last year might have been adopting the same position when he hit the parked car![/p][/quote]You are a horrible person.[/p][/quote]Why am I a horrible person? Don't quite understand that comment really..... hammer
  • Score: 0

8:47am Thu 14 Jul 11

hammer says...

ranger_bob wrote:
tracy m wrote:
Gooby wrote: I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.
I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby. Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours. It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it?
Does that mean Hammer has to leave everybody else alone rather than just slating cyclists (except her daughter) and whining on about mutts not being allowed to run around unchecked?
Ranger Bob - don't try to stick up for me or the anti-hammer mob might think we are in cahoots - sad really! I love a good lively debate myself LOL
[quote][p][bold]ranger_bob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.[/p][/quote]I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby. Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours. It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it?[/p][/quote]Does that mean Hammer has to leave everybody else alone rather than just slating cyclists (except her daughter) and whining on about mutts not being allowed to run around unchecked?[/p][/quote]Ranger Bob - don't try to stick up for me or the anti-hammer mob might think we are in cahoots - sad really! I love a good lively debate myself LOL hammer
  • Score: 0

9:01am Thu 14 Jul 11

not a fatty says...

Maybe it was directed at me ,hammer,I'm horrible.

Aerodynamic position not a problem into the wind,only do about 10 mph.Maybe an idea for the prom,giant fans to slow down rogue speeding bikers.
Maybe it was directed at me ,hammer,I'm horrible. Aerodynamic position not a problem into the wind,only do about 10 mph.Maybe an idea for the prom,giant fans to slow down rogue speeding bikers. not a fatty
  • Score: 0

9:49am Thu 14 Jul 11

Ziggy starburst says...

tracy m wrote:
What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists!
joking right? if not, silly comment.
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists![/p][/quote]joking right? if not, silly comment. Ziggy starburst
  • Score: 0

11:25am Thu 14 Jul 11

hammer says...

not a fatty wrote:
Maybe it was directed at me ,hammer,I'm horrible. Aerodynamic position not a problem into the wind,only do about 10 mph.Maybe an idea for the prom,giant fans to slow down rogue speeding bikers.
What a great idea LOL
[quote][p][bold]not a fatty[/bold] wrote: Maybe it was directed at me ,hammer,I'm horrible. Aerodynamic position not a problem into the wind,only do about 10 mph.Maybe an idea for the prom,giant fans to slow down rogue speeding bikers.[/p][/quote]What a great idea LOL hammer
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Thu 14 Jul 11

Bournehammer68 says...

Hammer I believe you are a teller of porky pies. Isn't it amazingly convenient that whatever argument you put forward a member of your family has been or is heavily involved.
Mary oh dear when will it sink in there is no such thing as road tax!!!!!!!1
it's a VEHICLE TAX and the money goes into central goverment coffers. it does not pay for road maintenance!
Hammer I believe you are a teller of porky pies. Isn't it amazingly convenient that whatever argument you put forward a member of your family has been or is heavily involved. Mary oh dear when will it sink in there is no such thing as road tax!!!!!!!1 it's a VEHICLE TAX and the money goes into central goverment coffers. it does not pay for road maintenance! Bournehammer68
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Thu 14 Jul 11

hammer says...

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Hammer I believe you are a teller of porky pies. Isn't it amazingly convenient that whatever argument you put forward a member of your family has been or is heavily involved. Mary oh dear when will it sink in there is no such thing as road tax!!!!!!!1 it's a VEHICLE TAX and the money goes into central goverment coffers. it does not pay for road maintenance!
That is a very dramatic statement to make to call me a "liar" - liar about what exactly and why should I lie about anything? Weird! If you are referring to my son who got killed riding a mountain bike then you seriously need help!
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: Hammer I believe you are a teller of porky pies. Isn't it amazingly convenient that whatever argument you put forward a member of your family has been or is heavily involved. Mary oh dear when will it sink in there is no such thing as road tax!!!!!!!1 it's a VEHICLE TAX and the money goes into central goverment coffers. it does not pay for road maintenance![/p][/quote]That is a very dramatic statement to make to call me a "liar" - liar about what exactly and why should I lie about anything? Weird! If you are referring to my son who got killed riding a mountain bike then you seriously need help! hammer
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Thu 14 Jul 11

Gooby says...

tracy m wrote:
What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists!
This comes down to the heart of the problem. Ignorant idiots who believe that stupidity progresses a debate.

No one in the UK pays road tax.

I suggest when you join a debate you understand the basic principles and points of your arguement. Just so you can get up to speed on this point, put;
Vehicle Excise Duty
into your search engine.
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists![/p][/quote]This comes down to the heart of the problem. Ignorant idiots who believe that stupidity progresses a debate. No one in the UK pays road tax. I suggest when you join a debate you understand the basic principles and points of your arguement. Just so you can get up to speed on this point, put; Vehicle Excise Duty into your search engine. Gooby
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Thu 14 Jul 11

hammer says...

Gooby wrote:
tracy m wrote: What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists!
This comes down to the heart of the problem. Ignorant idiots who believe that stupidity progresses a debate. No one in the UK pays road tax. I suggest when you join a debate you understand the basic principles and points of your arguement. Just so you can get up to speed on this point, put; Vehicle Excise Duty into your search engine.
Go Tracy Go!!!
[quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists![/p][/quote]This comes down to the heart of the problem. Ignorant idiots who believe that stupidity progresses a debate. No one in the UK pays road tax. I suggest when you join a debate you understand the basic principles and points of your arguement. Just so you can get up to speed on this point, put; Vehicle Excise Duty into your search engine.[/p][/quote]Go Tracy Go!!! hammer
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Thu 14 Jul 11

Gooby says...

tracy m wrote:
Gooby wrote:
I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.
I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby.

Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours.

It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it?
You are aware that in order to quote Shakespere I do not have to live in the 1600's.
I have many quotes, how about this;-
"It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created" - Winston Churchill with reference to he direct use of taxes collected from motorists to fund the road network.

I am trying to understand your logic. We are debating a blog and it is better that we do not agree but if I disagree with Hammer, I am picking on him?
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.[/p][/quote]I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby. Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours. It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it?[/p][/quote]You are aware that in order to quote Shakespere I do not have to live in the 1600's. I have many quotes, how about this;- "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created" - Winston Churchill with reference to he direct use of taxes collected from motorists to fund the road network. I am trying to understand your logic. We are debating a blog and it is better that we do not agree but if I disagree with Hammer, I am picking on him? Gooby
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Thu 14 Jul 11

tracy m says...

Gooby wrote:
tracy m wrote:
Gooby wrote: I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.
I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby. Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours. It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it?
You are aware that in order to quote Shakespere I do not have to live in the 1600's. I have many quotes, how about this;- "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created" - Winston Churchill with reference to he direct use of taxes collected from motorists to fund the road network. I am trying to understand your logic. We are debating a blog and it is better that we do not agree but if I disagree with Hammer, I am picking on him?
Ouch Gooby! I hope you are not so aggressive when riding your bike!T
You are the one that started the smart quotes!

Call it what you what ever you like you obviously got the message. Clearly visible registration number and a ""cycle excise duty" for each bike, hey! we could add insurance to that.

What a boost that would be to the country's economy.
T
[quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: I think I have found out where Mr Brown and I differ. David is very concerned with the public perception of cyclists (be they bike riders or cyclists). I dont actually give a **** what anyone thinks of me cycling. There is always someone winging about the way you cycle, to the point 90% of the road rage directed at cyclists because white van man can not overtake etc. Why must we cyclists respond to their anger and stupidity and worry over our perception. If someone has a problem with my cycling, it is their problem and will not affect me unless I decide to let it effect me. This is true to the point when a stupid idiot makes it my problem with a poor overtake or an action that physically endangers me. I am not so concerned with the perceptions of a few road users, I am concerned with the rights of the many and focusing on these rights will make the situation better for more cyclists. 99% of peoples perceptions and opinions are set in concrete. A great example of this is "Hammer". Incapable of free thought and an opinion so set in stone it could be part of the Purbeck hills. No matter what you write he will still pop up with his blind conviction that cyclists are there to knock him over, kill his dog and break any traffic laws that exist (or whatever). Noting apart from his demise will change that point of view. So... why bother to try. You will not succeed. Perhaps we should look at his education where solid and undeniable facts are taught, turning people into parrot like "photocopiers" unable to respond to new information or process data into information that could change a point of view. Perhaps it is just pride or selfishness? Perhaps he is just content to be ignorant, spout off the same old rubbish and have no desire to educate himself. Perhaps Mummy and Daddy were Daily Wail reading bigots and those taught paradigms have been instilled through nature and nurture. Hammer is not looking to change – he is looking for something to reinforce his opinion. To be honest - I dont care. I wise man once told me "to thine own self be true". I have no problem looking myself in the eye. The required shift in perception of the general public towards cyclists is going to be a difficult one. The general apathy to any road rage directed at cyclists needs to be combated and the police need to pay attention to complaints leveled by cyclists. Perception change will not happen by us publically complaining about inconsiderate motorists, these exist in the same way as “bike riders” exist. Technology is now on our side, helmet cams are easy and cheap and the motorists intolerance for cyclists is outweighed by the publics disgust at violence at anyone. It puts the police in a position where they have to react. The general feeling towards cyclists in the media has to change (oh my god – I am beginning to agree with David) Why are we so bothered about other peoples opinions - mine will have no effect on hammer and next week he will be back with his 3rd rate attempt at trolling.[/p][/quote]I didn't realise you were around in William Shakespeare's time or did someone else use his quote to you Gooby. Please leave Hammer alone everyone is entitled to their opintion even if it doesn't agree with yours. It really wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone agreed would it?[/p][/quote]You are aware that in order to quote Shakespere I do not have to live in the 1600's. I have many quotes, how about this;- "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created" - Winston Churchill with reference to he direct use of taxes collected from motorists to fund the road network. I am trying to understand your logic. We are debating a blog and it is better that we do not agree but if I disagree with Hammer, I am picking on him?[/p][/quote]Ouch Gooby! I hope you are not so aggressive when riding your bike!T You are the one that started the smart quotes! Call it what you what ever you like you obviously got the message. Clearly visible registration number and a ""cycle excise duty" for each bike, hey! we could add insurance to that. What a boost that would be to the country's economy. T tracy m
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Thu 14 Jul 11

eunoia6 says...

Gooby wrote:
tracy m wrote:
What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists!
This comes down to the heart of the problem. Ignorant idiots who believe that stupidity progresses a debate.

No one in the UK pays road tax.

I suggest when you join a debate you understand the basic principles and points of your arguement. Just so you can get up to speed on this point, put;
Vehicle Excise Duty
into your search engine.
Gooby.............th
e government website has /taxdisc at the end of the web address I was asked to use to renew my "tax disc" as the letter said. So clearly the government regard it as a tax.
[quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists![/p][/quote]This comes down to the heart of the problem. Ignorant idiots who believe that stupidity progresses a debate. No one in the UK pays road tax. I suggest when you join a debate you understand the basic principles and points of your arguement. Just so you can get up to speed on this point, put; Vehicle Excise Duty into your search engine.[/p][/quote]Gooby.............th e government website has /taxdisc at the end of the web address I was asked to use to renew my "tax disc" as the letter said. So clearly the government regard it as a tax. eunoia6
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Thu 14 Jul 11

eunoia6 says...

It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying.
However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport.
I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead.
As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general.
I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs.........
sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable.
obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars.
We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs
It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs eunoia6
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Thu 14 Jul 11

tracy m says...

eunoia6 wrote:
It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs
Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle
lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up
[quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs[/p][/quote]Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up tracy m
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Thu 14 Jul 11

cyclejim says...

Yes, VED is a tax. It's a tax on emissions and cycles would be placed in band A. Getting all cyclists to do the same as motor vehicles would cost the economy millions of pounds.
.
Uninsured drivers also cost the economy and unlucky individuals involved in accidents far more than uninsured cyclists do. But then I am insured as is everyone who is at a club and who races through their club membership and/or affilitation to whatever federation to race. And cars are held up by congestion of other cars far more than by bikes. I'm quite often held up by queuing traffic while riding - it works both ways and we have to learn to share the road and respect how we choose to travel.
.
What a gutsy ride by Geriant today, looking forward to see how he improves over the next few years.
Yes, VED is a tax. It's a tax on emissions and cycles would be placed in band A. Getting all cyclists to do the same as motor vehicles would cost the economy millions of pounds. . Uninsured drivers also cost the economy and unlucky individuals involved in accidents far more than uninsured cyclists do. But then I am insured as is everyone who is at a club and who races through their club membership and/or affilitation to whatever federation to race. And cars are held up by congestion of other cars far more than by bikes. I'm quite often held up by queuing traffic while riding - it works both ways and we have to learn to share the road and respect how we choose to travel. . What a gutsy ride by Geriant today, looking forward to see how he improves over the next few years. cyclejim
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Thu 14 Jul 11

tracy m says...

cyclejim wrote:
Yes, VED is a tax. It's a tax on emissions and cycles would be placed in band A. Getting all cyclists to do the same as motor vehicles would cost the economy millions of pounds. . Uninsured drivers also cost the economy and unlucky individuals involved in accidents far more than uninsured cyclists do. But then I am insured as is everyone who is at a club and who races through their club membership and/or affilitation to whatever federation to race. And cars are held up by congestion of other cars far more than by bikes. I'm quite often held up by queuing traffic while riding - it works both ways and we have to learn to share the road and respect how we choose to travel. . What a gutsy ride by Geriant today, looking forward to see how he improves over the next few years.
Yes. Geriant did well to come fifth.Pity he missed out on the five thousand euros still never mind he was voted the days most aggressive rider and was awarded two thousand euros!

Tax at source of purchase that would cut the cost of administration, the more cyclists the more income to improve accommodating everyone on the road and there safety.

Registration to pass with change of ownership or registration for life? That way rogue cyclists will be as much at risk to answering to the law as rogue drivers.
[quote][p][bold]cyclejim[/bold] wrote: Yes, VED is a tax. It's a tax on emissions and cycles would be placed in band A. Getting all cyclists to do the same as motor vehicles would cost the economy millions of pounds. . Uninsured drivers also cost the economy and unlucky individuals involved in accidents far more than uninsured cyclists do. But then I am insured as is everyone who is at a club and who races through their club membership and/or affilitation to whatever federation to race. And cars are held up by congestion of other cars far more than by bikes. I'm quite often held up by queuing traffic while riding - it works both ways and we have to learn to share the road and respect how we choose to travel. . What a gutsy ride by Geriant today, looking forward to see how he improves over the next few years.[/p][/quote]Yes. Geriant did well to come fifth.Pity he missed out on the five thousand euros still never mind he was voted the days most aggressive rider and was awarded two thousand euros! Tax at source of purchase that would cut the cost of administration, the more cyclists the more income to improve accommodating everyone on the road and there safety. Registration to pass with change of ownership or registration for life? That way rogue cyclists will be as much at risk to answering to the law as rogue drivers. tracy m
  • Score: 0

7:21am Fri 15 Jul 11

not a fatty says...

You are a bunch of idiots.

Tax cycling,watch television,drive dangerously near bikes because they're slowing traffic.
Average traffic speed in Poole is about 3 mph,cyclists are being killed,people are getting fatter,it's retarded.
You've all got brats I bet,what sort of world are you leaving them?
You are a bunch of idiots. Tax cycling,watch television,drive dangerously near bikes because they're slowing traffic. Average traffic speed in Poole is about 3 mph,cyclists are being killed,people are getting fatter,it's retarded. You've all got brats I bet,what sort of world are you leaving them? not a fatty
  • Score: 0

8:06am Fri 15 Jul 11

Bournehammer68 says...

eunoia6 wrote:
Gooby wrote:
tracy m wrote:
What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists!
This comes down to the heart of the problem. Ignorant idiots who believe that stupidity progresses a debate.

No one in the UK pays road tax.

I suggest when you join a debate you understand the basic principles and points of your arguement. Just so you can get up to speed on this point, put;
Vehicle Excise Duty
into your search engine.
Gooby.............th

e government website has /taxdisc at the end of the web address I was asked to use to renew my "tax disc" as the letter said. So clearly the government regard it as a tax.
of course it's a tax but IT ISN'T road tax!! It isn't used for the upkeep of the roads, it goes to central coffers to be used on whatever new pit the government decides to pour our cash into.
[quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: What a brilliant idea! Clearly visible registration number and road tax for cyclists![/p][/quote]This comes down to the heart of the problem. Ignorant idiots who believe that stupidity progresses a debate. No one in the UK pays road tax. I suggest when you join a debate you understand the basic principles and points of your arguement. Just so you can get up to speed on this point, put; Vehicle Excise Duty into your search engine.[/p][/quote]Gooby.............th e government website has /taxdisc at the end of the web address I was asked to use to renew my "tax disc" as the letter said. So clearly the government regard it as a tax.[/p][/quote]of course it's a tax but IT ISN'T road tax!! It isn't used for the upkeep of the roads, it goes to central coffers to be used on whatever new pit the government decides to pour our cash into. Bournehammer68
  • Score: 0

9:56am Fri 15 Jul 11

mikey2gorgeous says...

tracy m wrote:
cyclejim wrote:
Yes, VED is a tax. It's a tax on emissions and cycles would be placed in band A. Getting all cyclists to do the same as motor vehicles would cost the economy millions of pounds. . Uninsured drivers also cost the economy and unlucky individuals involved in accidents far more than uninsured cyclists do. But then I am insured as is everyone who is at a club and who races through their club membership and/or affilitation to whatever federation to race. And cars are held up by congestion of other cars far more than by bikes. I'm quite often held up by queuing traffic while riding - it works both ways and we have to learn to share the road and respect how we choose to travel. . What a gutsy ride by Geriant today, looking forward to see how he improves over the next few years.
Yes. Geriant did well to come fifth.Pity he missed out on the five thousand euros still never mind he was voted the days most aggressive rider and was awarded two thousand euros!

Tax at source of purchase that would cut the cost of administration, the more cyclists the more income to improve accommodating everyone on the road and there safety.

Registration to pass with change of ownership or registration for life? That way rogue cyclists will be as much at risk to answering to the law as rogue drivers.
TracyM, the roads are paid for by everyone through general taxation (local & national). Currently spending on roads goes towards providing a completely car-centric transport system.
VED is a tax on emissions. Vehicles that produce no emissions (electric cars for example) pay £0.
The Government is committed to reducing car use and CO2 emmisions - how does taxing bikes help that? Car ownership & running costs are less now than 10 years ago, what's going to help you decide to walk or cycle or take a bus instead?
And how much extra tax do YOU personally want to pay to cover registration and enforcement of your proposed system? Current enforcement of motor vehicles takes enough of our money that should be spent on NHS, local services etc not to mention the drain on our Police force.
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cyclejim[/bold] wrote: Yes, VED is a tax. It's a tax on emissions and cycles would be placed in band A. Getting all cyclists to do the same as motor vehicles would cost the economy millions of pounds. . Uninsured drivers also cost the economy and unlucky individuals involved in accidents far more than uninsured cyclists do. But then I am insured as is everyone who is at a club and who races through their club membership and/or affilitation to whatever federation to race. And cars are held up by congestion of other cars far more than by bikes. I'm quite often held up by queuing traffic while riding - it works both ways and we have to learn to share the road and respect how we choose to travel. . What a gutsy ride by Geriant today, looking forward to see how he improves over the next few years.[/p][/quote]Yes. Geriant did well to come fifth.Pity he missed out on the five thousand euros still never mind he was voted the days most aggressive rider and was awarded two thousand euros! Tax at source of purchase that would cut the cost of administration, the more cyclists the more income to improve accommodating everyone on the road and there safety. Registration to pass with change of ownership or registration for life? That way rogue cyclists will be as much at risk to answering to the law as rogue drivers.[/p][/quote]TracyM, the roads are paid for by everyone through general taxation (local & national). Currently spending on roads goes towards providing a completely car-centric transport system. VED is a tax on emissions. Vehicles that produce no emissions (electric cars for example) pay £0. The Government is committed to reducing car use and CO2 emmisions - how does taxing bikes help that? Car ownership & running costs are less now than 10 years ago, what's going to help you decide to walk or cycle or take a bus instead? And how much extra tax do YOU personally want to pay to cover registration and enforcement of your proposed system? Current enforcement of motor vehicles takes enough of our money that should be spent on NHS, local services etc not to mention the drain on our Police force. mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 0

10:09am Fri 15 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

eunoia6 wrote:
It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying.
However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport.
I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead.
As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general.
I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs.........
sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable.
obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars.
We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs
Agree 100%. There shouldn't be "sides" It's tolerance, awareness and patience that is all is needed. It's all "ifs" though.

The argument regarding Taxing and insuring cyclists is one that demonstrates little common sense to me though. The statistics on cyclists causing injuries or even death are minimal in comparison to other road users. Cyclists being injured by other road users is significant, and that is why the motorist is "targeted"

Cycle lanes benefit motorists as much, if not more than cyclists. How many times are motorists held up in their cars, unable to over-take a cyclist? With cycle lanes, it gives them space, allowing for a motorist to safely overtake, as long as no one has parked there, or forced to drive into the lane because of inconsiderate parking on the opposite side of the road.

Every cyclist seen on a road, is one less car waiting at roundabouts, looking for car parking spaces, queueing at traffic lights, and stuck in jams. To put a side to that argument, plenty of motorists break basic highway code to get "one car ahead" Logic says to me when I pass a cyclist on the road, that I should treat him/her with respect for what they are doing.

Motorists claim they are victims all the time. Motorists are not paying for cyclists. The roundabouts, traffic lights, maintenance, lower speed limits, fines, increased duty on fuel and driving full stop, are nothing to do with the cyclist.

The government can't tax cyclists if they claim they want to get people out of their cars and on a bike. Plenty of motorists complain they are "targeted" to plug gaps in local authority and police budgets, when THEY have broken the law. When it gets to the point, where motoring becomes a luxury for the well off, how many people will stamp their feet when the government introduce more taxes, tougher laws and penalties, just like they have for the motorist? That wouldn't be fairness. That would be the ducking stool of choice for getting about.

Some cyclists break the law, ride dangerously and selfishly. That's THEIR problem should they get caught, injure themselves, or someone else. Cyclists injuring other road users is rare, and particularly when comparing that to injuries and death caused by motorists. I myself, have yet to jump out the way of an inconsiderate cyclist, and I walk a lot. I don't see all these 100's of law breaking, inconsiderate cyclists every day either. Dog's have been a greater problem to me, and whilst this debate is little to do with dogs, the argument regarding taxing is relevant. Dog owners should be taxed, licensed and their dog's chipped. It costs money to provide bins and clean up after people's "choice" to own dogs.

I ride a bike very rarely, I drive frequently, I walk frequently. I would consider myself more a motorist. I know I am not perfect at all. The problem is, some people think they are. That's where more patience and tolerance is needed.
[quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs[/p][/quote]Agree 100%. There shouldn't be "sides" It's tolerance, awareness and patience that is all is needed. It's all "ifs" though. The argument regarding Taxing and insuring cyclists is one that demonstrates little common sense to me though. The statistics on cyclists causing injuries or even death are minimal in comparison to other road users. Cyclists being injured by other road users is significant, and that is why the motorist is "targeted" Cycle lanes benefit motorists as much, if not more than cyclists. How many times are motorists held up in their cars, unable to over-take a cyclist? With cycle lanes, it gives them space, allowing for a motorist to safely overtake, as long as no one has parked there, or forced to drive into the lane because of inconsiderate parking on the opposite side of the road. Every cyclist seen on a road, is one less car waiting at roundabouts, looking for car parking spaces, queueing at traffic lights, and stuck in jams. To put a side to that argument, plenty of motorists break basic highway code to get "one car ahead" Logic says to me when I pass a cyclist on the road, that I should treat him/her with respect for what they are doing. Motorists claim they are victims all the time. Motorists are not paying for cyclists. The roundabouts, traffic lights, maintenance, lower speed limits, fines, increased duty on fuel and driving full stop, are nothing to do with the cyclist. The government can't tax cyclists if they claim they want to get people out of their cars and on a bike. Plenty of motorists complain they are "targeted" to plug gaps in local authority and police budgets, when THEY have broken the law. When it gets to the point, where motoring becomes a luxury for the well off, how many people will stamp their feet when the government introduce more taxes, tougher laws and penalties, just like they have for the motorist? That wouldn't be fairness. That would be the ducking stool of choice for getting about. Some cyclists break the law, ride dangerously and selfishly. That's THEIR problem should they get caught, injure themselves, or someone else. Cyclists injuring other road users is rare, and particularly when comparing that to injuries and death caused by motorists. I myself, have yet to jump out the way of an inconsiderate cyclist, and I walk a lot. I don't see all these 100's of law breaking, inconsiderate cyclists every day either. Dog's have been a greater problem to me, and whilst this debate is little to do with dogs, the argument regarding taxing is relevant. Dog owners should be taxed, licensed and their dog's chipped. It costs money to provide bins and clean up after people's "choice" to own dogs. I ride a bike very rarely, I drive frequently, I walk frequently. I would consider myself more a motorist. I know I am not perfect at all. The problem is, some people think they are. That's where more patience and tolerance is needed. poolebabe
  • Score: 0

10:43am Fri 15 Jul 11

hammer says...

tracy m wrote:
eunoia6 wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs
Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up
The rogue cyclists I see can hardly be classed as "unintentional" They know exactly what they are doing! and I am also surprised that you would let your 8 year old break the law by riding on the pavement! You are hardly a good role model............
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs[/p][/quote]Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up[/p][/quote]The rogue cyclists I see can hardly be classed as "unintentional" They know exactly what they are doing! and I am also surprised that you would let your 8 year old break the law by riding on the pavement! You are hardly a good role model............ hammer
  • Score: 0

11:01am Fri 15 Jul 11

Ash_69 says...

hammer wrote:
tracy m wrote:
eunoia6 wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs
Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up
The rogue cyclists I see can hardly be classed as "unintentional" They know exactly what they are doing! and I am also surprised that you would let your 8 year old break the law by riding on the pavement! You are hardly a good role model............
Heather - what age do you think is appropriate then? My Daughter has recently turned 8 and I still prefer her to be on the pavement if it is a busy road. My Son who is now 12 will ride a lot more on the road, but still take to the pavement when he feels it is safer. These are children - how many do you know that cna judge well what is safe or not.
I understand that you had a Son, and a daughter - both of which cycled and sadly you son was killed (Well publicised in these papers). It was quoted that although he was wearing a cycle helmet, he was weaving in and out of cars and riding dangerously - So where was his good role model to stop him from doing that?
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs[/p][/quote]Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up[/p][/quote]The rogue cyclists I see can hardly be classed as "unintentional" They know exactly what they are doing! and I am also surprised that you would let your 8 year old break the law by riding on the pavement! You are hardly a good role model............[/p][/quote]Heather - what age do you think is appropriate then? My Daughter has recently turned 8 and I still prefer her to be on the pavement if it is a busy road. My Son who is now 12 will ride a lot more on the road, but still take to the pavement when he feels it is safer. These are children - how many do you know that cna judge well what is safe or not. I understand that you had a Son, and a daughter - both of which cycled and sadly you son was killed (Well publicised in these papers). It was quoted that although he was wearing a cycle helmet, he was weaving in and out of cars and riding dangerously - So where was his good role model to stop him from doing that? Ash_69
  • Score: 0

11:38am Fri 15 Jul 11

Bournehammer68 says...

hammer wrote:
Bournehammer68 wrote: Hammer I believe you are a teller of porky pies. Isn't it amazingly convenient that whatever argument you put forward a member of your family has been or is heavily involved. Mary oh dear when will it sink in there is no such thing as road tax!!!!!!!1 it's a VEHICLE TAX and the money goes into central goverment coffers. it does not pay for road maintenance!
That is a very dramatic statement to make to call me a "liar" - liar about what exactly and why should I lie about anything? Weird! If you are referring to my son who got killed riding a mountain bike then you seriously need help!
My point precisely, why would any-one feel the need to back up their argument with my son this my daughter that?
The loss of a son is obviously a terrible thing for any-one to deal with but I struggle to see how it is relevent to this debate.
I also find it odd that both your son and now your daughter have demonstrated a great love of cycling and yet you detest anyone on 2 wheels, doesn't this impact on your relationship? Do you constantly berate her for this love of something so insidious?
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: Hammer I believe you are a teller of porky pies. Isn't it amazingly convenient that whatever argument you put forward a member of your family has been or is heavily involved. Mary oh dear when will it sink in there is no such thing as road tax!!!!!!!1 it's a VEHICLE TAX and the money goes into central goverment coffers. it does not pay for road maintenance![/p][/quote]That is a very dramatic statement to make to call me a "liar" - liar about what exactly and why should I lie about anything? Weird! If you are referring to my son who got killed riding a mountain bike then you seriously need help![/p][/quote]My point precisely, why would any-one feel the need to back up their argument with my son this my daughter that? The loss of a son is obviously a terrible thing for any-one to deal with but I struggle to see how it is relevent to this debate. I also find it odd that both your son and now your daughter have demonstrated a great love of cycling and yet you detest anyone on 2 wheels, doesn't this impact on your relationship? Do you constantly berate her for this love of something so insidious? Bournehammer68
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Fri 15 Jul 11

eunoia6 says...

hammer wrote:
tracy m wrote:
eunoia6 wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs
Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up
The rogue cyclists I see can hardly be classed as "unintentional" They know exactly what they are doing! and I am also surprised that you would let your 8 year old break the law by riding on the pavement! You are hardly a good role model............
Hammer..............
sometimes I have defended your comments on here, but you really ought to learn to read. I stated that my son does NOT go out on his bike, and during conversation with him HE stated that he would not even ride on the pavement. Nowhere did I say that he actually did as he does not ride his bike AT ALL. Do keep up!
[quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs[/p][/quote]Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up[/p][/quote]The rogue cyclists I see can hardly be classed as "unintentional" They know exactly what they are doing! and I am also surprised that you would let your 8 year old break the law by riding on the pavement! You are hardly a good role model............[/p][/quote]Hammer.............. sometimes I have defended your comments on here, but you really ought to learn to read. I stated that my son does NOT go out on his bike, and during conversation with him HE stated that he would not even ride on the pavement. Nowhere did I say that he actually did as he does not ride his bike AT ALL. Do keep up! eunoia6
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Fri 15 Jul 11

hammer says...

eunoia6 wrote:
hammer wrote:
tracy m wrote:
eunoia6 wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs
Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up
The rogue cyclists I see can hardly be classed as "unintentional" They know exactly what they are doing! and I am also surprised that you would let your 8 year old break the law by riding on the pavement! You are hardly a good role model............
Hammer.............. sometimes I have defended your comments on here, but you really ought to learn to read. I stated that my son does NOT go out on his bike, and during conversation with him HE stated that he would not even ride on the pavement. Nowhere did I say that he actually did as he does not ride his bike AT ALL. Do keep up!
Whoops - I apologise - read your comment too quick - and my dog sends his regards LOL
[quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs[/p][/quote]Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up[/p][/quote]The rogue cyclists I see can hardly be classed as "unintentional" They know exactly what they are doing! and I am also surprised that you would let your 8 year old break the law by riding on the pavement! You are hardly a good role model............[/p][/quote]Hammer.............. sometimes I have defended your comments on here, but you really ought to learn to read. I stated that my son does NOT go out on his bike, and during conversation with him HE stated that he would not even ride on the pavement. Nowhere did I say that he actually did as he does not ride his bike AT ALL. Do keep up![/p][/quote]Whoops - I apologise - read your comment too quick - and my dog sends his regards LOL hammer
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Fri 15 Jul 11

hammer says...

Bournehammer68 wrote:
hammer wrote:
Bournehammer68 wrote: Hammer I believe you are a teller of porky pies. Isn't it amazingly convenient that whatever argument you put forward a member of your family has been or is heavily involved. Mary oh dear when will it sink in there is no such thing as road tax!!!!!!!1 it's a VEHICLE TAX and the money goes into central goverment coffers. it does not pay for road maintenance!
That is a very dramatic statement to make to call me a "liar" - liar about what exactly and why should I lie about anything? Weird! If you are referring to my son who got killed riding a mountain bike then you seriously need help!
My point precisely, why would any-one feel the need to back up their argument with my son this my daughter that? The loss of a son is obviously a terrible thing for any-one to deal with but I struggle to see how it is relevent to this debate. I also find it odd that both your son and now your daughter have demonstrated a great love of cycling and yet you detest anyone on 2 wheels, doesn't this impact on your relationship? Do you constantly berate her for this love of something so insidious?
I DO NOT DETEST EVERYONE ON TWO WHEELS JUST THE IDIOT CYLISTS!! I am very courteous to cyclists when I am driving or riding my motorbike. I mentioned my son because he made an error of judgement on the road and paid with his life. I just get angry and upset when I see other cyclists jeopardising their lives on the road unnecessarily.......
.........why can't you understand that!
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hammer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: Hammer I believe you are a teller of porky pies. Isn't it amazingly convenient that whatever argument you put forward a member of your family has been or is heavily involved. Mary oh dear when will it sink in there is no such thing as road tax!!!!!!!1 it's a VEHICLE TAX and the money goes into central goverment coffers. it does not pay for road maintenance![/p][/quote]That is a very dramatic statement to make to call me a "liar" - liar about what exactly and why should I lie about anything? Weird! If you are referring to my son who got killed riding a mountain bike then you seriously need help![/p][/quote]My point precisely, why would any-one feel the need to back up their argument with my son this my daughter that? The loss of a son is obviously a terrible thing for any-one to deal with but I struggle to see how it is relevent to this debate. I also find it odd that both your son and now your daughter have demonstrated a great love of cycling and yet you detest anyone on 2 wheels, doesn't this impact on your relationship? Do you constantly berate her for this love of something so insidious?[/p][/quote]I DO NOT DETEST EVERYONE ON TWO WHEELS JUST THE IDIOT CYLISTS!! I am very courteous to cyclists when I am driving or riding my motorbike. I mentioned my son because he made an error of judgement on the road and paid with his life. I just get angry and upset when I see other cyclists jeopardising their lives on the road unnecessarily....... .........why can't you understand that! hammer
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Fri 15 Jul 11

ekimnoslen says...

Cycling is a great way to get about but I prefer cyclists to be on the roads and not on the footpaths. Don't forget that there are unpleasant road users of all types, pedestrians, cyclists, drivers of motor vehicles etc. Why keep picking on cyclists? Sadly we in the UK seem to more than our share of nasty b******s in general. I wonder why?
Cycling is a great way to get about but I prefer cyclists to be on the roads and not on the footpaths. Don't forget that there are unpleasant road users of all types, pedestrians, cyclists, drivers of motor vehicles etc. Why keep picking on cyclists? Sadly we in the UK seem to more than our share of nasty b******s in general. I wonder why? ekimnoslen
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Fri 15 Jul 11

weevie says...

One has caused the other. This country has far too many self-important idiots in their cars, and the bike riders have either responded likewise, or are/will be the same morons when in a car.

The reason a lot of people drive in the ridiculous painted 'cycle lanes' (god, what a joke) is that more and more motorcycles and scooters cruise down the centre of the traffic. it's not going to get any better until we have dedicated cycle paths, away from roads - even if it is part of the pavement - lets face it, just how many walkers do YOU see on urban pavements at rush-hour? I wish to god the councils would wake up.
One has caused the other. This country has far too many self-important idiots in their cars, and the bike riders have either responded likewise, or are/will be the same morons when in a car. The reason a lot of people drive in the ridiculous painted 'cycle lanes' (god, what a joke) is that more and more motorcycles and scooters cruise down the centre of the traffic. it's not going to get any better until we have dedicated cycle paths, away from roads - even if it is part of the pavement - lets face it, just how many walkers do YOU see on urban pavements at rush-hour? I wish to god the councils would wake up. weevie
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Ziggy starburst says...

weevie wrote:
One has caused the other. This country has far too many self-important idiots in their cars, and the bike riders have either responded likewise, or are/will be the same morons when in a car.

The reason a lot of people drive in the ridiculous painted 'cycle lanes' (god, what a joke) is that more and more motorcycles and scooters cruise down the centre of the traffic. it's not going to get any better until we have dedicated cycle paths, away from roads - even if it is part of the pavement - lets face it, just how many walkers do YOU see on urban pavements at rush-hour? I wish to god the councils would wake up.
well said, sums it up nicely. I clicked on this as it was "most commented" it seems it's gained it's most commented status via 1 or 2 people. Why can't we all just get along...(film?)
[quote][p][bold]weevie[/bold] wrote: One has caused the other. This country has far too many self-important idiots in their cars, and the bike riders have either responded likewise, or are/will be the same morons when in a car. The reason a lot of people drive in the ridiculous painted 'cycle lanes' (god, what a joke) is that more and more motorcycles and scooters cruise down the centre of the traffic. it's not going to get any better until we have dedicated cycle paths, away from roads - even if it is part of the pavement - lets face it, just how many walkers do YOU see on urban pavements at rush-hour? I wish to god the councils would wake up.[/p][/quote]well said, sums it up nicely. I clicked on this as it was "most commented" it seems it's gained it's most commented status via 1 or 2 people. Why can't we all just get along...(film?) Ziggy starburst
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Sat 16 Jul 11

s-pb2 says...

tracy m wrote:
eunoia6 wrote:
It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs
Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle
lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up
What reason should cyclists pay a tax?
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: It is sad that every single article mentioning cycling goes off topic after a few posts and the insults start flying. However, there do seem to be rather a lot of articles about cycling and hardly any in balance regarding other forms of transport. I am a car driver and a considerate one, and I have been a cyclist or bike rider. Of course cycling is a better, healthier and cheaper and environmentally friendly blah blah way of getting around. It's a no brainer. There should be a better cycle infrastructure to allow more cycle lanes to keep motorists and cyclists and pedetrians apart as it's clear they don't mix well even though they should. Don't get me started about dogs because they are wayyyy more a threat than cyclists and Hammer I am afraid your dog should be under control imo as should every dog, and that means on a lead. As we all seem to agree, there are the minority of cyclists that give the rest a bad name, and I am afraid poor car driving is on the increase as is the general selfish, don't give a sh*t attitude in the world in general. I would love to allow my young son out on his bike but even he, at 8 years old is too afraid to use the roads and even feels the pavement is a danger from abusive peds or dogs......... sadly cycling with him is not an option as it is too stressful, dangerous and worrying to make it enjoyable. obviously there are more idiots in cars than bikes as there are more of them but the 3 to 4 mile school run I do twice a day before and after commuting between Bournemouth and Salisbury racks up around 20 to 30 dangerous morons in cars per day as opposed to 5 or 6 cyclists that are idiotic but not intentional knowing morons in cars. We need better roads and better cycle lanes and more control taken with dogs[/p][/quote]Yes if all bikes paid a tax perhaps it could be ringfenced to extend cycle lanes. Cyclists would feel safer and the rest of the traffic would not be held up[/p][/quote]What reason should cyclists pay a tax? s-pb2
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Sat 16 Jul 11

tracy m says...

A ring-fenced tax was just a suggestion to improve the infrastructure for cyclists' benefit as they feel intimidated by other traffic.

The increase in all traffic on the road is alarming. It is equally precarious for cyclists, motorists, scooters, motor bikes, buses, lorry drivers and vans etc.

Most of us road users have to pay a tax whatever excuse you want to call it just to be on the road so I don't see why the increasingly number of cyclists who want equal consideration shouldn't do the same.

I am not going to follow up on that argument though as on the road is where they should be!
A ring-fenced tax was just a suggestion to improve the infrastructure for cyclists' benefit as they feel intimidated by other traffic. The increase in all traffic on the road is alarming. It is equally precarious for cyclists, motorists, scooters, motor bikes, buses, lorry drivers and vans etc. Most of us road users have to pay a tax whatever excuse you want to call it just to be on the road so I don't see why the increasingly number of cyclists who want equal consideration shouldn't do the same. I am not going to follow up on that argument though as on the road is where they should be! tracy m
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Sat 16 Jul 11

s-pb2 says...

tracy m wrote:
A ring-fenced tax was just a suggestion to improve the infrastructure for cyclists' benefit as they feel intimidated by other traffic.

The increase in all traffic on the road is alarming. It is equally precarious for cyclists, motorists, scooters, motor bikes, buses, lorry drivers and vans etc.

Most of us road users have to pay a tax whatever excuse you want to call it just to be on the road so I don't see why the increasingly number of cyclists who want equal consideration shouldn't do the same.

I am not going to follow up on that argument though as on the road is where they should be!
So take a look down at Slades farm this afternoon and have a look at the skate park, and tell me whether all those kids should be taxed? After all they would all use the road. Also what about mobility scooters? Skateboarders? Longboarders? Rollerbladers even? They all use the road too. This may sound ridiculous but so is taxing cyclists!
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: A ring-fenced tax was just a suggestion to improve the infrastructure for cyclists' benefit as they feel intimidated by other traffic. The increase in all traffic on the road is alarming. It is equally precarious for cyclists, motorists, scooters, motor bikes, buses, lorry drivers and vans etc. Most of us road users have to pay a tax whatever excuse you want to call it just to be on the road so I don't see why the increasingly number of cyclists who want equal consideration shouldn't do the same. I am not going to follow up on that argument though as on the road is where they should be![/p][/quote]So take a look down at Slades farm this afternoon and have a look at the skate park, and tell me whether all those kids should be taxed? After all they would all use the road. Also what about mobility scooters? Skateboarders? Longboarders? Rollerbladers even? They all use the road too. This may sound ridiculous but so is taxing cyclists! s-pb2
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Sat 16 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

s-pb2 wrote:
tracy m wrote:
A ring-fenced tax was just a suggestion to improve the infrastructure for cyclists' benefit as they feel intimidated by other traffic.

The increase in all traffic on the road is alarming. It is equally precarious for cyclists, motorists, scooters, motor bikes, buses, lorry drivers and vans etc.

Most of us road users have to pay a tax whatever excuse you want to call it just to be on the road so I don't see why the increasingly number of cyclists who want equal consideration shouldn't do the same.

I am not going to follow up on that argument though as on the road is where they should be!
So take a look down at Slades farm this afternoon and have a look at the skate park, and tell me whether all those kids should be taxed? After all they would all use the road. Also what about mobility scooters? Skateboarders? Longboarders? Rollerbladers even? They all use the road too. This may sound ridiculous but so is taxing cyclists!
You missed out pedestrians :/ That's how ridiculous the whole "taxing" debate is! Zebra Crossings, pavements and pedestrian crossings all cost money. Perhaps pedestrians should have license plates too, so they can be identified for jay walking *sheesh* I agree with you. I am a motorist in the main, but I can't understand this bile spat at cyclists all the time. Why can't everyone just have more tolerance and awareness?
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: A ring-fenced tax was just a suggestion to improve the infrastructure for cyclists' benefit as they feel intimidated by other traffic. The increase in all traffic on the road is alarming. It is equally precarious for cyclists, motorists, scooters, motor bikes, buses, lorry drivers and vans etc. Most of us road users have to pay a tax whatever excuse you want to call it just to be on the road so I don't see why the increasingly number of cyclists who want equal consideration shouldn't do the same. I am not going to follow up on that argument though as on the road is where they should be![/p][/quote]So take a look down at Slades farm this afternoon and have a look at the skate park, and tell me whether all those kids should be taxed? After all they would all use the road. Also what about mobility scooters? Skateboarders? Longboarders? Rollerbladers even? They all use the road too. This may sound ridiculous but so is taxing cyclists![/p][/quote]You missed out pedestrians :/ That's how ridiculous the whole "taxing" debate is! Zebra Crossings, pavements and pedestrian crossings all cost money. Perhaps pedestrians should have license plates too, so they can be identified for jay walking *sheesh* I agree with you. I am a motorist in the main, but I can't understand this bile spat at cyclists all the time. Why can't everyone just have more tolerance and awareness? poolebabe
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Sat 16 Jul 11

udaku says...

So more of you cycling folks have sussed hammer. No argument, just the same old dross repeated over and over. No penhale, I wonder why.
Didn't bother reading all the puke but has she mentioned her son to gain the edge with the pity card yet. She usually does when the comments aren't in her favour. Any insulting words yet, rogue cyclists, lycra louts, that sort of thing's the norm.
Yep, cycling is great, super, wonderful. Best way to get around, stay fit. Cyclists generally are pleasant people to meet on the trail, helpful, considerate and polite. If I showed you the differences between my daily journey by bike and car you would see why I love cycling. Birds sing, flowers bloom, wind on face or a desert of tarmac, stress and traffic jams. Its your choice how you experience your day. Thank god for the bicycle!
So more of you cycling folks have sussed hammer. No argument, just the same old dross repeated over and over. No penhale, I wonder why. Didn't bother reading all the puke but has she mentioned her son to gain the edge with the pity card yet. She usually does when the comments aren't in her favour. Any insulting words yet, rogue cyclists, lycra louts, that sort of thing's the norm. Yep, cycling is great, super, wonderful. Best way to get around, stay fit. Cyclists generally are pleasant people to meet on the trail, helpful, considerate and polite. If I showed you the differences between my daily journey by bike and car you would see why I love cycling. Birds sing, flowers bloom, wind on face or a desert of tarmac, stress and traffic jams. Its your choice how you experience your day. Thank god for the bicycle! udaku
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Sat 16 Jul 11

eunoia6 says...

Udaku....
That's all nice and flowery, but you are still perpetuating the idea that "cycle human good....car human bad"
Read my post. Some days I see more idiot cyclists than motorists, some days the opposite.
The attitude problem is a disease.......irresp
ective of mode of transport and a general thing amongst us all.
And I for one would not want to lose my son so have a bit of compassion.
Udaku.... That's all nice and flowery, but you are still perpetuating the idea that "cycle human good....car human bad" Read my post. Some days I see more idiot cyclists than motorists, some days the opposite. The attitude problem is a disease.......irresp ective of mode of transport and a general thing amongst us all. And I for one would not want to lose my son so have a bit of compassion. eunoia6
  • Score: 0

12:01am Sun 17 Jul 11

udaku says...

Eunoia6.we have all lost someone, but refrain from using the experience on an internet discussion. This is the last place you should fish for sympathy. Friends, family, these are the people with whome you should share these things. Hammer shows little compassion towards others who comment here and adds momentum to any anti-cycling comments made, then tells us it's because she cares for us all so much that she dosen't want us to get hurt on our bikes. It does not wash with me i'm afraid. Same old, same old, week in, week out. Give us a break because hammer, your comments are spoiling what could be an interesting discussion on the topic at hand. You take any transport related article and pervert the comments towards a negative angle on cycling. It's pointless, distructive, boring, personalised regurgitated tripe. I do have compassion in my relationships with people I meet. These are words on a page so I must take them with a pinch of salt. Hammer could be a liar, how should I know, male, female, who really knows. The constant return to the story of her son leads me to believe hammer is lying. If my son died in this way here is the last place I would mention it, i would find it too upsetting. Hammer does not cycleyet appears on every cycling discussion perverting it's course. And here we are talking about hammer again. Surely hammer is an attention seeeking TROLL.
Eunoia6.we have all lost someone, but refrain from using the experience on an internet discussion. This is the last place you should fish for sympathy. Friends, family, these are the people with whome you should share these things. Hammer shows little compassion towards others who comment here and adds momentum to any anti-cycling comments made, then tells us it's because she cares for us all so much that she dosen't want us to get hurt on our bikes. It does not wash with me i'm afraid. Same old, same old, week in, week out. Give us a break because hammer, your comments are spoiling what could be an interesting discussion on the topic at hand. You take any transport related article and pervert the comments towards a negative angle on cycling. It's pointless, distructive, boring, personalised regurgitated tripe. I do have compassion in my relationships with people I meet. These are words on a page so I must take them with a pinch of salt. Hammer could be a liar, how should I know, male, female, who really knows. The constant return to the story of her son leads me to believe hammer is lying. If my son died in this way here is the last place I would mention it, i would find it too upsetting. Hammer does not cycleyet appears on every cycling discussion perverting it's course. And here we are talking about hammer again. Surely hammer is an attention seeeking TROLL. udaku
  • Score: 0

12:09am Sun 17 Jul 11

udaku says...

also E6, why am I not allowed to say I enjoy cycling more than driving. Never said cyclist good driver bad. You saw this, what is wrong with you? What makes any posative comment about cycling an attack on car drivers. Thats it. I,m not wasting more time on you. Think I have an incling of what your about. Just sodoff eoparanoia6 or whoever you think you are. Burp!
also E6, why am I not allowed to say I enjoy cycling more than driving. Never said cyclist good driver bad. You saw this, what is wrong with you? What makes any posative comment about cycling an attack on car drivers. Thats it. I,m not wasting more time on you. Think I have an incling of what your about. Just sodoff eoparanoia6 or whoever you think you are. Burp! udaku
  • Score: 0

9:46am Sun 17 Jul 11

Ziggy starburst says...

Taxing cyclists is a stupid naive idea for many reasons ie the simple fact that the money wouldn't be used to improve cycling, say what you like but it wouldn't, road fund tax isn't used to improve roads (not all of it). Plus of course it's environmentally friendly and healthy so there shouldn't be a tax on it. Taxing anything to solve a problem is a government/managment idea that doesn't work (conveniently for the government) Taxing cigarettes at 400% wouldnt stop smoking, increasing alcohol tax to "stop anti social behaviour" doesnt/hasn't/won't work. It just diverts more money to the government. Finally, we as human beings, need some form of transport that is free and can't be manipulated by policticians and big business. It's been said by many people on here already but there are idiots driving cars and idiots riding bikes and you can't stop either from being idiots by banning them, taxing them or legislating against them. Chances are they will be idiots when they get out of their car/off their bike and walk to the front of a queue "because they are in a hurry" or touch a hot plate after being warned it's a hot plate and complain it's hot. Get out and enjoy the world in whatever way you can...preferably on a bike! oh, and lighten up some of you....
Taxing cyclists is a stupid naive idea for many reasons ie the simple fact that the money wouldn't be used to improve cycling, say what you like but it wouldn't, road fund tax isn't used to improve roads (not all of it). Plus of course it's environmentally friendly and healthy so there shouldn't be a tax on it. Taxing anything to solve a problem is a government/managment idea that doesn't work (conveniently for the government) Taxing cigarettes at 400% wouldnt stop smoking, increasing alcohol tax to "stop anti social behaviour" doesnt/hasn't/won't work. It just diverts more money to the government. Finally, we as human beings, need some form of transport that is free and can't be manipulated by policticians and big business. It's been said by many people on here already but there are idiots driving cars and idiots riding bikes and you can't stop either from being idiots by banning them, taxing them or legislating against them. Chances are they will be idiots when they get out of their car/off their bike and walk to the front of a queue "because they are in a hurry" or touch a hot plate after being warned it's a hot plate and complain it's hot. Get out and enjoy the world in whatever way you can...preferably on a bike! oh, and lighten up some of you.... Ziggy starburst
  • Score: 0

10:59am Sun 17 Jul 11

eunoia6 says...

Ziggy starburst wrote:
Taxing cyclists is a stupid naive idea for many reasons ie the simple fact that the money wouldn't be used to improve cycling, say what you like but it wouldn't, road fund tax isn't used to improve roads (not all of it). Plus of course it's environmentally friendly and healthy so there shouldn't be a tax on it. Taxing anything to solve a problem is a government/managment idea that doesn't work (conveniently for the government) Taxing cigarettes at 400% wouldnt stop smoking, increasing alcohol tax to "stop anti social behaviour" doesnt/hasn't/won't work. It just diverts more money to the government. Finally, we as human beings, need some form of transport that is free and can't be manipulated by policticians and big business. It's been said by many people on here already but there are idiots driving cars and idiots riding bikes and you can't stop either from being idiots by banning them, taxing them or legislating against them. Chances are they will be idiots when they get out of their car/off their bike and walk to the front of a queue "because they are in a hurry" or touch a hot plate after being warned it's a hot plate and complain it's hot. Get out and enjoy the world in whatever way you can...preferably on a bike! oh, and lighten up some of you....
Completely agree Ziggy.........some positive and creative comments have been made.
It's a shame we have to put up with trolls like Udaku who appear and start the insults
[quote][p][bold]Ziggy starburst[/bold] wrote: Taxing cyclists is a stupid naive idea for many reasons ie the simple fact that the money wouldn't be used to improve cycling, say what you like but it wouldn't, road fund tax isn't used to improve roads (not all of it). Plus of course it's environmentally friendly and healthy so there shouldn't be a tax on it. Taxing anything to solve a problem is a government/managment idea that doesn't work (conveniently for the government) Taxing cigarettes at 400% wouldnt stop smoking, increasing alcohol tax to "stop anti social behaviour" doesnt/hasn't/won't work. It just diverts more money to the government. Finally, we as human beings, need some form of transport that is free and can't be manipulated by policticians and big business. It's been said by many people on here already but there are idiots driving cars and idiots riding bikes and you can't stop either from being idiots by banning them, taxing them or legislating against them. Chances are they will be idiots when they get out of their car/off their bike and walk to the front of a queue "because they are in a hurry" or touch a hot plate after being warned it's a hot plate and complain it's hot. Get out and enjoy the world in whatever way you can...preferably on a bike! oh, and lighten up some of you....[/p][/quote]Completely agree Ziggy.........some positive and creative comments have been made. It's a shame we have to put up with trolls like Udaku who appear and start the insults eunoia6
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Sun 17 Jul 11

twobigdogs says...

I think there are more bad cyclists than "good" cyclists here in Poole and Bmth!The ones I see especially round Pen hill junctions and Westbourne just seem to do their own thing...regardless of lights/markings/pave
ments or car positions etc. There is one cyclist (female) who I think must have a death wish who always ignores all the traffic lights at Pen hill junction..........I have even seen her "mouthing off" at car drivers as she rides between the cars waiting at the red lights!....Its cyclists like her that taint every cyclist as a pain!
I think there are more bad cyclists than "good" cyclists here in Poole and Bmth!The ones I see especially round Pen hill junctions and Westbourne just seem to do their own thing...regardless of lights/markings/pave ments or car positions etc. There is one cyclist (female) who I think must have a death wish who always ignores all the traffic lights at Pen hill junction..........I have even seen her "mouthing off" at car drivers as she rides between the cars waiting at the red lights!....Its cyclists like her that taint every cyclist as a pain! twobigdogs
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Sun 17 Jul 11

mysticalshoelace says...

Personally I'm sick of having "how great" cycling is rammed down my throat by B'mth council, the echo, cyclists etc....

The only reason it's quicker to get from one side of town to the other by bike is because of seriously bad planning by councils and the fact that Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch have been allowed to be developed into one huge ugly urban sprawl.

Owning a car is a necessity these days, bikes are dangerous on busy roads and rubbish when the weather's bad which is pretty often plus you can't carry much on a bike. They are not a serious form of transport and are better suited to leisure activities (if you could find anywhere that's actually nice in B'mth) and drunk drivers.
Personally I'm sick of having "how great" cycling is rammed down my throat by B'mth council, the echo, cyclists etc.... The only reason it's quicker to get from one side of town to the other by bike is because of seriously bad planning by councils and the fact that Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch have been allowed to be developed into one huge ugly urban sprawl. Owning a car is a necessity these days, bikes are dangerous on busy roads and rubbish when the weather's bad which is pretty often plus you can't carry much on a bike. They are not a serious form of transport and are better suited to leisure activities (if you could find anywhere that's actually nice in B'mth) and drunk drivers. mysticalshoelace
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Sun 17 Jul 11

Ziggy starburst says...

mysticalshoelace wrote:
Personally I'm sick of having "how great" cycling is rammed down my throat by B'mth council, the echo, cyclists etc....

The only reason it's quicker to get from one side of town to the other by bike is because of seriously bad planning by councils and the fact that Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch have been allowed to be developed into one huge ugly urban sprawl.

Owning a car is a necessity these days, bikes are dangerous on busy roads and rubbish when the weather's bad which is pretty often plus you can't carry much on a bike. They are not a serious form of transport and are better suited to leisure activities (if you could find anywhere that's actually nice in B'mth) and drunk drivers.
??? so you agree it's quicker to cycle across town but it's the REASON it's quicker that annoys you? That's a wierd thought process isn't it. Bikes are also bad because you can't carry much on them? that's like saying a fire engine is useless because you can't plough a field with a fire engine. And there are no nice places in bournemouth either. Does kind of beg the question, why are you reading the bournemouth echo website. Were you expecting news about somewhere else? Never mind eh. Personally I'm a cyclist because I can't be bothered with parking, jams etc and I get a taxi when it rains. I'm not anti car or driver though. It's easier for ME, not anyone else, just me because of where I live and work. Simple as that. I don't hate cars and drivers because I don't live far from work. That would be weird
[quote][p][bold]mysticalshoelace[/bold] wrote: Personally I'm sick of having "how great" cycling is rammed down my throat by B'mth council, the echo, cyclists etc.... The only reason it's quicker to get from one side of town to the other by bike is because of seriously bad planning by councils and the fact that Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch have been allowed to be developed into one huge ugly urban sprawl. Owning a car is a necessity these days, bikes are dangerous on busy roads and rubbish when the weather's bad which is pretty often plus you can't carry much on a bike. They are not a serious form of transport and are better suited to leisure activities (if you could find anywhere that's actually nice in B'mth) and drunk drivers.[/p][/quote]??? so you agree it's quicker to cycle across town but it's the REASON it's quicker that annoys you? That's a wierd thought process isn't it. Bikes are also bad because you can't carry much on them? that's like saying a fire engine is useless because you can't plough a field with a fire engine. And there are no nice places in bournemouth either. Does kind of beg the question, why are you reading the bournemouth echo website. Were you expecting news about somewhere else? Never mind eh. Personally I'm a cyclist because I can't be bothered with parking, jams etc and I get a taxi when it rains. I'm not anti car or driver though. It's easier for ME, not anyone else, just me because of where I live and work. Simple as that. I don't hate cars and drivers because I don't live far from work. That would be weird Ziggy starburst
  • Score: 0

11:31am Mon 18 Jul 11

Gooby says...

tracy m wrote:
A ring-fenced tax was just a suggestion to improve the infrastructure for cyclists' benefit as they feel intimidated by other traffic.

The increase in all traffic on the road is alarming. It is equally precarious for cyclists, motorists, scooters, motor bikes, buses, lorry drivers and vans etc.

Most of us road users have to pay a tax whatever excuse you want to call it just to be on the road so I don't see why the increasingly number of cyclists who want equal consideration shouldn't do the same.

I am not going to follow up on that argument though as on the road is where they should be!
Tracy - thank you for demonstrating the inbred and "island nature" of the British. The astounding level of ignorance of your comments leave me stunned. The biggest issue with this moronic point of view is that it is commonly held. You are content to revel in the lazyness of your "road tax" arguement which (I am sure) is spoon fed by an educational diet of the Sun, Daily Mirror and News of the World (I bet your Sundays will not be the same 'till the Sun of Sunday...)

Lets ignore the fact that no one pays road tax, no one pays a tax specifically for infrastructure let alone for hiway infrastructure. So we will ignore the foundation stone of your arguement that "road tax allows you to drive on the road in return your contribution to fund road infrastructure" - a wonderful statement of ignorance, but hey...

I pay income tax at 40% plus NI contributions. I pay council tax at approx £1400 per year. I pay V.E.D of 4 vehicles (over £1k/annum). I pay tax on the fuel used in the cars at over 86%. I pay VAT @ 20%. Well over 60% of my earnings are paid in tax of one sort or another. I paid 20% VAT on the cycle that I purchased.

You propose that a further tax should be paid for the simple joy of riding a cycle. How about the 8 year old who rides his bike to school? Should he pay tax too? Lets ignore the societal method of implementation of ALL taxes. I have not had cause to use the NHS since I was 14. Perhaps I should stop my contribution to the NHS? I have not paid a specific "military" tax, does that mean I can get some sort of a rebate because I do not use the military services? I have not used an ambulance (another rebate?) I have not used any social services (ever), I am sure I am due a rebate....

I am lucky that my work takes me to cities in France, Holland, Germany etc. None of these countries display the same bigotry to the cyclist - quite the opposite. Cycling is respected to the point that in Holland the law states that in any circumstance if a motorist harms in any way a cyclist, it is the motorist at fault.

I have been lucky to travel far and wide and this is the only 1st world country, I find such stupidity. - Congratulations Tracy - I hope you are proud to be British.
[quote][p][bold]tracy m[/bold] wrote: A ring-fenced tax was just a suggestion to improve the infrastructure for cyclists' benefit as they feel intimidated by other traffic. The increase in all traffic on the road is alarming. It is equally precarious for cyclists, motorists, scooters, motor bikes, buses, lorry drivers and vans etc. Most of us road users have to pay a tax whatever excuse you want to call it just to be on the road so I don't see why the increasingly number of cyclists who want equal consideration shouldn't do the same. I am not going to follow up on that argument though as on the road is where they should be![/p][/quote]Tracy - thank you for demonstrating the inbred and "island nature" of the British. The astounding level of ignorance of your comments leave me stunned. The biggest issue with this moronic point of view is that it is commonly held. You are content to revel in the lazyness of your "road tax" arguement which (I am sure) is spoon fed by an educational diet of the Sun, Daily Mirror and News of the World (I bet your Sundays will not be the same 'till the Sun of Sunday...) Lets ignore the fact that no one pays road tax, no one pays a tax specifically for infrastructure let alone for hiway infrastructure. So we will ignore the foundation stone of your arguement that "road tax allows you to drive on the road in return your contribution to fund road infrastructure" - a wonderful statement of ignorance, but hey... I pay income tax at 40% plus NI contributions. I pay council tax at approx £1400 per year. I pay V.E.D of 4 vehicles (over £1k/annum). I pay tax on the fuel used in the cars at over 86%. I pay VAT @ 20%. Well over 60% of my earnings are paid in tax of one sort or another. I paid 20% VAT on the cycle that I purchased. You propose that a further tax should be paid for the simple joy of riding a cycle. How about the 8 year old who rides his bike to school? Should he pay tax too? Lets ignore the societal method of implementation of ALL taxes. I have not had cause to use the NHS since I was 14. Perhaps I should stop my contribution to the NHS? I have not paid a specific "military" tax, does that mean I can get some sort of a rebate because I do not use the military services? I have not used an ambulance (another rebate?) I have not used any social services (ever), I am sure I am due a rebate.... I am lucky that my work takes me to cities in France, Holland, Germany etc. None of these countries display the same bigotry to the cyclist - quite the opposite. Cycling is respected to the point that in Holland the law states that in any circumstance if a motorist harms in any way a cyclist, it is the motorist at fault. I have been lucky to travel far and wide and this is the only 1st world country, I find such stupidity. - Congratulations Tracy - I hope you are proud to be British. Gooby
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Mon 18 Jul 11

eunoia6 says...

Gooby...........
I don't see anywhere in Tracy's post that says or even infers us British are inbred..........a rather bizarre attitude to take. Tracy was expressing an opinion, and a valid one it would seem.
It appears you simply want to use this forum to insult people, and then show off and delight in advising us that you are a higher wage earner that has numerous vehicles, and that you travel a lot.
You accuse others of ignorance and yet demonstrate that you cannot spell yourself, and are quite the bully, without the brains to use a spell checker! Someone with an opposite or differing view to you is called a moron and lazy and yet you know nothing of the person(s) you insult in this way.
In addition, your allegory of being spoon fed by a newspaper is laughable, let alone the notion that ANY newspaper is educational in intent or content is silly as well.

You are completely wrong that no-one pays a tax for a specific infrastructure. Our council tax does indeed pay towards local Council Highways, and income tax pays for general infrastructure of almost everything else in relation to roads. We could discuss all day about the many services that Council Tax pays towards including educational, social and law infrastructure locally.
Obviously not everyone is aware that our government made a subtle change from "Road Tax" as used to be to VED (although excise is still an indirect tax, but we will for simplicity ignore your own ignorance of this fact), then later changed it again to relate it more towards emissions. However, it is obviously a tax by another name, we know it.....the government knows it, so why do you insist on trying to use it to belittle someone? Must be the bully in you methinks? Although you then go on to include it in your list of taxes, so you shoot yourself firmly in the foot........
Tax is a catch all idea. There is the pensioner that may only use his car once a month but he/she still pays full VED etc etc. Obviously the 8 year old forced to pay tax on his bike falls into that category as such, but of course if such a tax law were passed then it would possibly be his parent(s) that would foot the bill, but in reality the easiest idea would be to put a one off fee on every bike sold that went towards the building of a dedicated cycle lane network, free from roads altogether. The idea of everyone paying to use something in society is a good one I feel. May be, cyclists/bike riders, would happily pay a tax/fee of sorts to guarantee them their own areas to cycle in? Has anyone asked?

You arguments of "I don't use it so I wont pay" is just stupid. You and I and millions of others already contribute en mass for things we don't necessarily use.............it's called Council Tax !
The fact is that you may not use Social Services directly, but indirectly you do, so in trying to be clever pants you shoot yourself in the other foot through lack of thought and research.
If in The Netherlands, (NOT Holland which is simply an area of The Netherlands), do indeed have a law of "Strict Liability". However, this law is in place as a result of the fact that there is a proper network of segregated cycle facilities and not a blind law attached for no reason. It would not work here because we lack what they have.
No-one is "anti cycle" just anti idiot on a cycle the same as we are anti idiot in a car and anti idiot on a newspaper forum. Your lack of relevant comment on this forum in relation to the subject matter and the content of your post shows you to be in all three categories.
Gooby........... I don't see anywhere in Tracy's post that says or even infers us British are inbred..........a rather bizarre attitude to take. Tracy was expressing an opinion, and a valid one it would seem. It appears you simply want to use this forum to insult people, and then show off and delight in advising us that you are a higher wage earner that has numerous vehicles, and that you travel a lot. You accuse others of ignorance and yet demonstrate that you cannot spell yourself, and are quite the bully, without the brains to use a spell checker! Someone with an opposite or differing view to you is called a moron and lazy and yet you know nothing of the person(s) you insult in this way. In addition, your allegory of being spoon fed by a newspaper is laughable, let alone the notion that ANY newspaper is educational in intent or content is silly as well. You are completely wrong that no-one pays a tax for a specific infrastructure. Our council tax does indeed pay towards local Council Highways, and income tax pays for general infrastructure of almost everything else in relation to roads. We could discuss all day about the many services that Council Tax pays towards including educational, social and law infrastructure locally. Obviously not everyone is aware that our government made a subtle change from "Road Tax" as used to be to VED (although excise is still an indirect tax, but we will for simplicity ignore your own ignorance of this fact), then later changed it again to relate it more towards emissions. However, it is obviously a tax by another name, we know it.....the government knows it, so why do you insist on trying to use it to belittle someone? Must be the bully in you methinks? Although you then go on to include it in your list of taxes, so you shoot yourself firmly in the foot........ Tax is a catch all idea. There is the pensioner that may only use his car once a month but he/she still pays full VED etc etc. Obviously the 8 year old forced to pay tax on his bike falls into that category as such, but of course if such a tax law were passed then it would possibly be his parent(s) that would foot the bill, but in reality the easiest idea would be to put a one off fee on every bike sold that went towards the building of a dedicated cycle lane network, free from roads altogether. The idea of everyone paying to use something in society is a good one I feel. May be, cyclists/bike riders, would happily pay a tax/fee of sorts to guarantee them their own areas to cycle in? Has anyone asked? You arguments of "I don't use it so I wont pay" is just stupid. You and I and millions of others already contribute en mass for things we don't necessarily use.............it's called Council Tax ! The fact is that you may not use Social Services directly, but indirectly you do, so in trying to be clever pants you shoot yourself in the other foot through lack of thought and research. If in The Netherlands, (NOT Holland which is simply an area of The Netherlands), do indeed have a law of "Strict Liability". However, this law is in place as a result of the fact that there is a proper network of segregated cycle facilities and not a blind law attached for no reason. It would not work here because we lack what they have. No-one is "anti cycle" just anti idiot on a cycle the same as we are anti idiot in a car and anti idiot on a newspaper forum. Your lack of relevant comment on this forum in relation to the subject matter and the content of your post shows you to be in all three categories. eunoia6
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Mon 18 Jul 11

tracy m says...

eunoia6 wrote:
Gooby........... I don't see anywhere in Tracy's post that says or even infers us British are inbred..........a rather bizarre attitude to take. Tracy was expressing an opinion, and a valid one it would seem. It appears you simply want to use this forum to insult people, and then show off and delight in advising us that you are a higher wage earner that has numerous vehicles, and that you travel a lot. You accuse others of ignorance and yet demonstrate that you cannot spell yourself, and are quite the bully, without the brains to use a spell checker! Someone with an opposite or differing view to you is called a moron and lazy and yet you know nothing of the person(s) you insult in this way. In addition, your allegory of being spoon fed by a newspaper is laughable, let alone the notion that ANY newspaper is educational in intent or content is silly as well. You are completely wrong that no-one pays a tax for a specific infrastructure. Our council tax does indeed pay towards local Council Highways, and income tax pays for general infrastructure of almost everything else in relation to roads. We could discuss all day about the many services that Council Tax pays towards including educational, social and law infrastructure locally. Obviously not everyone is aware that our government made a subtle change from "Road Tax" as used to be to VED (although excise is still an indirect tax, but we will for simplicity ignore your own ignorance of this fact), then later changed it again to relate it more towards emissions. However, it is obviously a tax by another name, we know it.....the government knows it, so why do you insist on trying to use it to belittle someone? Must be the bully in you methinks? Although you then go on to include it in your list of taxes, so you shoot yourself firmly in the foot........ Tax is a catch all idea. There is the pensioner that may only use his car once a month but he/she still pays full VED etc etc. Obviously the 8 year old forced to pay tax on his bike falls into that category as such, but of course if such a tax law were passed then it would possibly be his parent(s) that would foot the bill, but in reality the easiest idea would be to put a one off fee on every bike sold that went towards the building of a dedicated cycle lane network, free from roads altogether. The idea of everyone paying to use something in society is a good one I feel. May be, cyclists/bike riders, would happily pay a tax/fee of sorts to guarantee them their own areas to cycle in? Has anyone asked? You arguments of "I don't use it so I wont pay" is just stupid. You and I and millions of others already contribute en mass for things we don't necessarily use.............it's called Council Tax ! The fact is that you may not use Social Services directly, but indirectly you do, so in trying to be clever pants you shoot yourself in the other foot through lack of thought and research. If in The Netherlands, (NOT Holland which is simply an area of The Netherlands), do indeed have a law of "Strict Liability". However, this law is in place as a result of the fact that there is a proper network of segregated cycle facilities and not a blind law attached for no reason. It would not work here because we lack what they have. No-one is "anti cycle" just anti idiot on a cycle the same as we are anti idiot in a car and anti idiot on a newspaper forum. Your lack of relevant comment on this forum in relation to the subject matter and the content of your post shows you to be in all three categories.
Thank you and congratulations eunoia6 you have considered and grasped my message.

Gooby only ever rants away with the same old theme of insults, attempting to create the impression of being so superior to everyone else who doesn't entirley view the world through his eyes.

(But do we know what he says is true or wishful thinking.)

Yes, many of us have seen the infrastructure in place in other countries. Unfortunately the same facilties are not available on our narrow roads and pavements. I just thought a ringfenced tax could be used somehow to improve the lot of the cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: Gooby........... I don't see anywhere in Tracy's post that says or even infers us British are inbred..........a rather bizarre attitude to take. Tracy was expressing an opinion, and a valid one it would seem. It appears you simply want to use this forum to insult people, and then show off and delight in advising us that you are a higher wage earner that has numerous vehicles, and that you travel a lot. You accuse others of ignorance and yet demonstrate that you cannot spell yourself, and are quite the bully, without the brains to use a spell checker! Someone with an opposite or differing view to you is called a moron and lazy and yet you know nothing of the person(s) you insult in this way. In addition, your allegory of being spoon fed by a newspaper is laughable, let alone the notion that ANY newspaper is educational in intent or content is silly as well. You are completely wrong that no-one pays a tax for a specific infrastructure. Our council tax does indeed pay towards local Council Highways, and income tax pays for general infrastructure of almost everything else in relation to roads. We could discuss all day about the many services that Council Tax pays towards including educational, social and law infrastructure locally. Obviously not everyone is aware that our government made a subtle change from "Road Tax" as used to be to VED (although excise is still an indirect tax, but we will for simplicity ignore your own ignorance of this fact), then later changed it again to relate it more towards emissions. However, it is obviously a tax by another name, we know it.....the government knows it, so why do you insist on trying to use it to belittle someone? Must be the bully in you methinks? Although you then go on to include it in your list of taxes, so you shoot yourself firmly in the foot........ Tax is a catch all idea. There is the pensioner that may only use his car once a month but he/she still pays full VED etc etc. Obviously the 8 year old forced to pay tax on his bike falls into that category as such, but of course if such a tax law were passed then it would possibly be his parent(s) that would foot the bill, but in reality the easiest idea would be to put a one off fee on every bike sold that went towards the building of a dedicated cycle lane network, free from roads altogether. The idea of everyone paying to use something in society is a good one I feel. May be, cyclists/bike riders, would happily pay a tax/fee of sorts to guarantee them their own areas to cycle in? Has anyone asked? You arguments of "I don't use it so I wont pay" is just stupid. You and I and millions of others already contribute en mass for things we don't necessarily use.............it's called Council Tax ! The fact is that you may not use Social Services directly, but indirectly you do, so in trying to be clever pants you shoot yourself in the other foot through lack of thought and research. If in The Netherlands, (NOT Holland which is simply an area of The Netherlands), do indeed have a law of "Strict Liability". However, this law is in place as a result of the fact that there is a proper network of segregated cycle facilities and not a blind law attached for no reason. It would not work here because we lack what they have. No-one is "anti cycle" just anti idiot on a cycle the same as we are anti idiot in a car and anti idiot on a newspaper forum. Your lack of relevant comment on this forum in relation to the subject matter and the content of your post shows you to be in all three categories.[/p][/quote]Thank you and congratulations eunoia6 you have considered and grasped my message. Gooby only ever rants away with the same old theme of insults, attempting to create the impression of being so superior to everyone else who doesn't entirley view the world through his eyes. (But do we know what he says is true or wishful thinking.) Yes, many of us have seen the infrastructure in place in other countries. Unfortunately the same facilties are not available on our narrow roads and pavements. I just thought a ringfenced tax could be used somehow to improve the lot of the cyclist. tracy m
  • Score: 0

11:39pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Gooby says...

Euonia6
Fantastic - the old spelling argument. My apologies for any spelling errors in this response. I do find it is usually those with the least to say dredge up this argument.

If by intonation I am a higher wage earner than yourself, I wont apologise. What is more interesting is that somehow you are upset by this. There are many people who earn more than myself, I don’t have a problem with it. I do travel a lot. I get to see and meet great people and I get paid a good wage for this. I also get to pay huge amounts of tax for which I receive very little value for. I pay private medical insurance. I have done my best to secure my home so I do not require the police and I pay for my child’s education. The thought of paying more tax to ride a bike is staggering and I find that fundamentally stupid on so many levels. This is the only place I have found that type of stupidity. It is almost as stupid as inheritance tax.

You have actually peaked my curiosity so I have investigated a list of services provided by my local social services department - and no, I do not use social services directly or indirectly. Perhaps you could tell me what I use, it seems that you are an expert (oh no, so far you have been remarkably wrong for someone who is trying to correct me.)

I did pay a “one off fee” when I purchased my cycle – it is called VAT. It is used by the government (at their discretion) for various things some of which may be road infrastructure and cycle lanes. So why would I want to pay it again or more? Why is this fair? Perhaps you should pay road tax for your new shoes or even your car?

Please could you also look up the word “specific” in any dictionary, there are many on line that are convenient.

Council Tax is NOT an infrastructure tax. The council may use it for infrastructure but it is for the services that the council provide and for what is not provided for my central government. Council tax is paid into a council “pot” and an aspect of which could be used for roads but it is not an infrastructure tax or a road tax. About 16% of Bournemouth’s budget is spent on roads. Before you try and correct me perhaps you should do a little research.

In your rush to prove me wrong you have still to check your facts. Our government did not make a subtle change from road tax to VED, it wasn’t even my fathers government. Road tax was changed to VED in 1937. It was changed from a contribution to "road fund" in 1920 (not a spelling mistake) If you are that poorly informed that I doubt during your entire life, you have not paid road tax or towards a road fund. Vehicle Excise Duty goes into a central government fund. This fund can be used for major road building projects or to fund malaria jabs in the 3rd world but it is not a road tax. The problem is that the level of self imposed, blissful ignorance of the great public is such that they believe they pay road tax.


At this point I would like to ask did you actually read my post?

My point about newspapers was specifically intended to elude to a lack of education.

The facts are; due to the societal nature of the British tax system I pay huge amounts of tax for services I never use. This does not entitle me to a rebate. In the same way as paying a huge amount in duties in order to legally entitle me to drive my car does not entitle me to rights of ownership over the roads and specifically does not give me more right to use the road infrastructure than a cyclist, pedestrian etc. By charging cyclists a "road tax" this breaks this fundamental principle. Not only that, it is dumb. Short sighted imbeciles who want this tax don’t think this through logically. What would be required is a register of every cycle in the country. Then laws to be able enforce a tax regime and methods of collection. If we say as a basic figure there is one bike for every person in the country (I own 4 cycles) but I am sure there are those with none. The £billions that would be required for our govt to set up the infrastructure to tax cycles would not be recouped for many years. Taking further money from essential services.

Cyclists as a resident (they have to live someplace) will pay Council tax either directly or by a responsible parent. This tax has an intended use to provide local services, to some extent that is local roads, Therefore cyclists do pay for the road infrastructure.

So in Holland they have a “strict liability” Law? Oh yes they do….they do in other parts of the Netherlands. Cyclists are not charged a cycle tax. The infrastructure is superb and it is so safe the requirement for helmets is minimal. So why not over here? Motorists get a set of specific road infrastructure, why shouldn’t a cyclist? Pedestrians get specific path infrastructure, why shouldn’t a cyclist?

I am “anti”. I am anti idiot. I am “anti” those who do not think. I am also “anti” those who think that we should be taxed more. I cant think of a place where we would be taxed more, and where I would get less for my money. I am also “anti” those who are so irresponsible that they are prepared to be ignorant as to how their money is spent. If an understanding of general knowledge “belittles” someone then too bad. If you feel belittled by me having to remove a little of your ignorance then … too bad.
Euonia6 Fantastic - the old spelling argument. My apologies for any spelling errors in this response. I do find it is usually those with the least to say dredge up this argument. If by intonation I am a higher wage earner than yourself, I wont apologise. What is more interesting is that somehow you are upset by this. There are many people who earn more than myself, I don’t have a problem with it. I do travel a lot. I get to see and meet great people and I get paid a good wage for this. I also get to pay huge amounts of tax for which I receive very little value for. I pay private medical insurance. I have done my best to secure my home so I do not require the police and I pay for my child’s education. The thought of paying more tax to ride a bike is staggering and I find that fundamentally stupid on so many levels. This is the only place I have found that type of stupidity. It is almost as stupid as inheritance tax. You have actually peaked my curiosity so I have investigated a list of services provided by my local social services department - and no, I do not use social services directly or indirectly. Perhaps you could tell me what I use, it seems that you are an expert (oh no, so far you have been remarkably wrong for someone who is trying to correct me.) I did pay a “one off fee” when I purchased my cycle – it is called VAT. It is used by the government (at their discretion) for various things some of which may be road infrastructure and cycle lanes. So why would I want to pay it again or more? Why is this fair? Perhaps you should pay road tax for your new shoes or even your car? Please could you also look up the word “specific” in any dictionary, there are many on line that are convenient. Council Tax is NOT an infrastructure tax. The council may use it for infrastructure but it is for the services that the council provide and for what is not provided for my central government. Council tax is paid into a council “pot” and an aspect of which could be used for roads but it is not an infrastructure tax or a road tax. About 16% of Bournemouth’s budget is spent on roads. Before you try and correct me perhaps you should do a little research. In your rush to prove me wrong you have still to check your facts. Our government did not make a subtle change from road tax to VED, it wasn’t even my fathers government. Road tax was changed to VED in 1937. It was changed from a contribution to "road fund" in 1920 (not a spelling mistake) If you are that poorly informed that I doubt during your entire life, you have not paid road tax or towards a road fund. Vehicle Excise Duty goes into a central government fund. This fund can be used for major road building projects or to fund malaria jabs in the 3rd world but it is not a road tax. The problem is that the level of self imposed, blissful ignorance of the great public is such that they believe they pay road tax. At this point I would like to ask did you actually read my post? My point about newspapers was specifically intended to elude to a lack of education. The facts are; due to the societal nature of the British tax system I pay huge amounts of tax for services I never use. This does not entitle me to a rebate. In the same way as paying a huge amount in duties in order to legally entitle me to drive my car does not entitle me to rights of ownership over the roads and specifically does not give me more right to use the road infrastructure than a cyclist, pedestrian etc. By charging cyclists a "road tax" this breaks this fundamental principle. Not only that, it is dumb. Short sighted imbeciles who want this tax don’t think this through logically. What would be required is a register of every cycle in the country. Then laws to be able enforce a tax regime and methods of collection. If we say as a basic figure there is one bike for every person in the country (I own 4 cycles) but I am sure there are those with none. The £billions that would be required for our govt to set up the infrastructure to tax cycles would not be recouped for many years. Taking further money from essential services. Cyclists as a resident (they have to live someplace) will pay Council tax either directly or by a responsible parent. This tax has an intended use to provide local services, to some extent that is local roads, Therefore cyclists do pay for the road infrastructure. So in Holland they have a “strict liability” Law? Oh yes they do….they do in other parts of the Netherlands. Cyclists are not charged a cycle tax. The infrastructure is superb and it is so safe the requirement for helmets is minimal. So why not over here? Motorists get a set of specific road infrastructure, why shouldn’t a cyclist? Pedestrians get specific path infrastructure, why shouldn’t a cyclist? I am “anti”. I am anti idiot. I am “anti” those who do not think. I am also “anti” those who think that we should be taxed more. I cant think of a place where we would be taxed more, and where I would get less for my money. I am also “anti” those who are so irresponsible that they are prepared to be ignorant as to how their money is spent. If an understanding of general knowledge “belittles” someone then too bad. If you feel belittled by me having to remove a little of your ignorance then … too bad. Gooby
  • Score: 0

11:40pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Gooby says...

Euonia6
Fantastic - the old spelling argument. My apologies for any spelling errors in this response. I do find it is usually those with the least to say dredge up this argument.

If by intonation I am a higher wage earner than yourself, I wont apologise. What is more interesting is that somehow you are upset by this. There are many people who earn more than myself, I don’t have a problem with it. I do travel a lot. I get to see and meet great people and I get paid a good wage for this. I also get to pay huge amounts of tax for which I receive very little value for. I pay private medical insurance. I have done my best to secure my home so I do not require the police and I pay for my child’s education. The thought of paying more tax to ride a bike is staggering and I find that fundamentally stupid on so many levels. This is the only place I have found that type of stupidity. It is almost as stupid as inheritance tax.

You have actually peaked my curiosity so I have investigated a list of services provided by my local social services department - and no, I do not use social services directly or indirectly. Perhaps you could tell me what I use, it seems that you are an expert (oh no, so far you have been remarkably wrong for someone who is trying to correct me.)

I did pay a “one off fee” when I purchased my cycle – it is called VAT. It is used by the government (at their discretion) for various things some of which may be road infrastructure and cycle lanes. So why would I want to pay it again or more? Why is this fair? Perhaps you should pay road tax for your new shoes or even your car?

Please could you also look up the word “specific” in any dictionary, there are many on line that are convenient.

Council Tax is NOT an infrastructure tax. The council may use it for infrastructure but it is for the services that the council provide and for what is not provided for my central government. Council tax is paid into a council “pot” and an aspect of which could be used for roads but it is not an infrastructure tax or a road tax. About 16% of Bournemouth’s budget is spent on roads. Before you try and correct me perhaps you should do a little research.

In your rush to prove me wrong you have still to check your facts. Our government did not make a subtle change from road tax to VED, it wasn’t even my fathers government. Road tax was changed to VED in 1937. It was changed from a contribution to "road fund" in 1920 (not a spelling mistake) If you are that poorly informed that I doubt during your entire life, you have not paid road tax or towards a road fund. Vehicle Excise Duty goes into a central government fund. This fund can be used for major road building projects or to fund malaria jabs in the 3rd world but it is not a road tax. The problem is that the level of self imposed, blissful ignorance of the great public is such that they believe they pay road tax.


At this point I would like to ask did you actually read my post?

My point about newspapers was specifically intended to elude to a lack of education.

The facts are; due to the societal nature of the British tax system I pay huge amounts of tax for services I never use. This does not entitle me to a rebate. In the same way as paying a huge amount in duties in order to legally entitle me to drive my car does not entitle me to rights of ownership over the roads and specifically does not give me more right to use the road infrastructure than a cyclist, pedestrian etc. By charging cyclists a "road tax" this breaks this fundamental principle. Not only that, it is dumb. Short sighted imbeciles who want this tax don’t think this through logically. What would be required is a register of every cycle in the country. Then laws to be able enforce a tax regime and methods of collection. If we say as a basic figure there is one bike for every person in the country (I own 4 cycles) but I am sure there are those with none. The £billions that would be required for our govt to set up the infrastructure to tax cycles would not be recouped for many years. Taking further money from essential services.

Cyclists as a resident (they have to live someplace) will pay Council tax either directly or by a responsible parent. This tax has an intended use to provide local services, to some extent that is local roads, Therefore cyclists do pay for the road infrastructure.

So in Holland they have a “strict liability” Law? Oh yes they do….they do in other parts of the Netherlands. Cyclists are not charged a cycle tax. The infrastructure is superb and it is so safe the requirement for helmets is minimal. So why not over here? Motorists get a set of specific road infrastructure, why shouldn’t a cyclist? Pedestrians get specific path infrastructure, why shouldn’t a cyclist?

I am “anti”. I am anti idiot. I am “anti” those who do not think. I am also “anti” those who think that we should be taxed more. I cant think of a place where we would be taxed more, and where I would get less for my money. I am also “anti” those who are so irresponsible that they are prepared to be ignorant as to how their money is spent. If an understanding of general knowledge “belittles” someone then too bad. If you feel belittled by me having to remove a little of your ignorance then … too bad.
Euonia6 Fantastic - the old spelling argument. My apologies for any spelling errors in this response. I do find it is usually those with the least to say dredge up this argument. If by intonation I am a higher wage earner than yourself, I wont apologise. What is more interesting is that somehow you are upset by this. There are many people who earn more than myself, I don’t have a problem with it. I do travel a lot. I get to see and meet great people and I get paid a good wage for this. I also get to pay huge amounts of tax for which I receive very little value for. I pay private medical insurance. I have done my best to secure my home so I do not require the police and I pay for my child’s education. The thought of paying more tax to ride a bike is staggering and I find that fundamentally stupid on so many levels. This is the only place I have found that type of stupidity. It is almost as stupid as inheritance tax. You have actually peaked my curiosity so I have investigated a list of services provided by my local social services department - and no, I do not use social services directly or indirectly. Perhaps you could tell me what I use, it seems that you are an expert (oh no, so far you have been remarkably wrong for someone who is trying to correct me.) I did pay a “one off fee” when I purchased my cycle – it is called VAT. It is used by the government (at their discretion) for various things some of which may be road infrastructure and cycle lanes. So why would I want to pay it again or more? Why is this fair? Perhaps you should pay road tax for your new shoes or even your car? Please could you also look up the word “specific” in any dictionary, there are many on line that are convenient. Council Tax is NOT an infrastructure tax. The council may use it for infrastructure but it is for the services that the council provide and for what is not provided for my central government. Council tax is paid into a council “pot” and an aspect of which could be used for roads but it is not an infrastructure tax or a road tax. About 16% of Bournemouth’s budget is spent on roads. Before you try and correct me perhaps you should do a little research. In your rush to prove me wrong you have still to check your facts. Our government did not make a subtle change from road tax to VED, it wasn’t even my fathers government. Road tax was changed to VED in 1937. It was changed from a contribution to "road fund" in 1920 (not a spelling mistake) If you are that poorly informed that I doubt during your entire life, you have not paid road tax or towards a road fund. Vehicle Excise Duty goes into a central government fund. This fund can be used for major road building projects or to fund malaria jabs in the 3rd world but it is not a road tax. The problem is that the level of self imposed, blissful ignorance of the great public is such that they believe they pay road tax. At this point I would like to ask did you actually read my post? My point about newspapers was specifically intended to elude to a lack of education. The facts are; due to the societal nature of the British tax system I pay huge amounts of tax for services I never use. This does not entitle me to a rebate. In the same way as paying a huge amount in duties in order to legally entitle me to drive my car does not entitle me to rights of ownership over the roads and specifically does not give me more right to use the road infrastructure than a cyclist, pedestrian etc. By charging cyclists a "road tax" this breaks this fundamental principle. Not only that, it is dumb. Short sighted imbeciles who want this tax don’t think this through logically. What would be required is a register of every cycle in the country. Then laws to be able enforce a tax regime and methods of collection. If we say as a basic figure there is one bike for every person in the country (I own 4 cycles) but I am sure there are those with none. The £billions that would be required for our govt to set up the infrastructure to tax cycles would not be recouped for many years. Taking further money from essential services. Cyclists as a resident (they have to live someplace) will pay Council tax either directly or by a responsible parent. This tax has an intended use to provide local services, to some extent that is local roads, Therefore cyclists do pay for the road infrastructure. So in Holland they have a “strict liability” Law? Oh yes they do….they do in other parts of the Netherlands. Cyclists are not charged a cycle tax. The infrastructure is superb and it is so safe the requirement for helmets is minimal. So why not over here? Motorists get a set of specific road infrastructure, why shouldn’t a cyclist? Pedestrians get specific path infrastructure, why shouldn’t a cyclist? I am “anti”. I am anti idiot. I am “anti” those who do not think. I am also “anti” those who think that we should be taxed more. I cant think of a place where we would be taxed more, and where I would get less for my money. I am also “anti” those who are so irresponsible that they are prepared to be ignorant as to how their money is spent. If an understanding of general knowledge “belittles” someone then too bad. If you feel belittled by me having to remove a little of your ignorance then … too bad. Gooby
  • Score: 0

11:52pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Gooby says...

Tracy m
The big problem I have is your fundamental lack of understanding of how our tax system works.

The next thing you will want is a shoe tax (they use paths and road infrastructure). How about you go the whole hog and demand a "road tax"? Motorists have all this available infrastructure, shouldnt they be taxed for it?
Tracy m The big problem I have is your fundamental lack of understanding of how our tax system works. The next thing you will want is a shoe tax (they use paths and road infrastructure). How about you go the whole hog and demand a "road tax"? Motorists have all this available infrastructure, shouldnt they be taxed for it? Gooby
  • Score: 0

8:48am Tue 19 Jul 11

tracy m says...

Gooby wrote:
Tracy m The big problem I have is your fundamental lack of understanding of how our tax system works. The next thing you will want is a shoe tax (they use paths and road infrastructure). How about you go the whole hog and demand a "road tax"? Motorists have all this available infrastructure, shouldnt they be taxed for it?
Are you sure that is your problem Gooby?

A bicycle is a two-wheeled pedal-driven VEHICLE.

I refer you to Euonia6's history of tax on vehicles.

More bicycles than ever are on the road making more demands on the infrastructure and making complaints about other road users. I suggested a one off payment at point of purchase ringfenced tax.

Should it be beyond the realms of posibility that cyclistists pay as
well?. "Emission tav" is just an excuse to raise more money by targeting road users, surely we pay VAT when we purchase our cars?
[quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: Tracy m The big problem I have is your fundamental lack of understanding of how our tax system works. The next thing you will want is a shoe tax (they use paths and road infrastructure). How about you go the whole hog and demand a "road tax"? Motorists have all this available infrastructure, shouldnt they be taxed for it?[/p][/quote]Are you sure that is your problem Gooby? A bicycle is a two-wheeled pedal-driven VEHICLE. I refer you to Euonia6's history of tax on vehicles. More bicycles than ever are on the road making more demands on the infrastructure and making complaints about other road users. I suggested a one off payment at point of purchase ringfenced tax. Should it be beyond the realms of posibility that cyclistists pay as well?. "Emission tav" is just an excuse to raise more money by targeting road users, surely we pay VAT when we purchase our cars? tracy m
  • Score: 0

10:15am Tue 19 Jul 11

Gooby says...

It is nice that you point me to euonia6's spiel on tax. It is just a shame it contains NO FACTS. But hey - you go ahead and believe it if you like. Why would facts get in the way of anything you say. If you choose to remain ignorant about the tax you pay in the autocracy we reside then how can you be helped?

There is already a tax at point of sale for cars, bikes, cycles etc.

I am well aware that basic reading and comprehension are a little beyond your capabilities. Lets list them (again);
1) Cycles are taxed at point of sale at a VAT rate of 20%. There is your "one off payment"
2) At a cyclist has to live somewhere, a cyclist has to pay council tax. for example, Bournemouth council devote 16% of their budget for roads etc. Why should a Council tax paying motorist be given road infrastructure if a cyclist is not? Why should a pedestrian be given path infrastructure and a cyclist does not?
3) I know you are keen that a Vehicle Excise Duty that has been in existence since 1937 should be car tax/ road tax/ motorist tax even though blatantly it isn’t and has not been since 1920, here you are; I pay VED and tax on the consumables to run my cars. I also paid VAT when I purchased them. I cannot cycle and drive at the same time so my contributions are large. I am not the only one who is a motorist and a cyclist. All vehicles are taxed on emissions. As a cycle produces zero emissions the corresponding duty is ZERO. Same for electric cars and hybrid cars but you don’t seem to want to charge them extra taxes in order to be used.

So far cyclists are taxed at point of sale, taxed by the council for contributions towards infrastructure and (I would estimate) 98% of cyclists pay duties for a car they cant drive while cycling. As of next year the new carbon tax will charge a levy on the carbon used in the production of a cycle too.

So when will cyclists see a return on all this investment? How much tax does a cyclist have to pay before we get some sort of dedicated and safe infrastructure?
It is nice that you point me to euonia6's spiel on tax. It is just a shame it contains NO FACTS. But hey - you go ahead and believe it if you like. Why would facts get in the way of anything you say. If you choose to remain ignorant about the tax you pay in the autocracy we reside then how can you be helped? There is already a tax at point of sale for cars, bikes, cycles etc. I am well aware that basic reading and comprehension are a little beyond your capabilities. Lets list them (again); 1) Cycles are taxed at point of sale at a VAT rate of 20%. There is your "one off payment" 2) At a cyclist has to live somewhere, a cyclist has to pay council tax. for example, Bournemouth council devote 16% of their budget for roads etc. Why should a Council tax paying motorist be given road infrastructure if a cyclist is not? Why should a pedestrian be given path infrastructure and a cyclist does not? 3) I know you are keen that a Vehicle Excise Duty that has been in existence since 1937 should be car tax/ road tax/ motorist tax even though blatantly it isn’t and has not been since 1920, here you are; I pay VED and tax on the consumables to run my cars. I also paid VAT when I purchased them. I cannot cycle and drive at the same time so my contributions are large. I am not the only one who is a motorist and a cyclist. All vehicles are taxed on emissions. As a cycle produces zero emissions the corresponding duty is ZERO. Same for electric cars and hybrid cars but you don’t seem to want to charge them extra taxes in order to be used. So far cyclists are taxed at point of sale, taxed by the council for contributions towards infrastructure and (I would estimate) 98% of cyclists pay duties for a car they cant drive while cycling. As of next year the new carbon tax will charge a levy on the carbon used in the production of a cycle too. So when will cyclists see a return on all this investment? How much tax does a cyclist have to pay before we get some sort of dedicated and safe infrastructure? Gooby
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Tue 19 Jul 11

eunoia6 says...

Gooby..........
Yet more insults to pad the gaps.
My point on spelling was that you were insulting another's intelligence, and yet you omit the application of the very intelligence you question in checking what you write.
My point about your earnings was not in consideration in any way that I care or worry that you may or may not be a higher wage earner, but merely incredulity that you felt you had to tell us all what you earn in the first instance and show us that you are a in the higher tax bracket, as if this is somehow a indication that you are a better person. Clearly in your mind you are, even though everything you write contradicts that supposition. You even exacerbate and prove the point by adding that you pay for private healthcare and private education of your children. Both are utterly irrelevant to the matter in hand.

As someone who has worked in the fields of tax, and local government, I can advise you that Council Tax provides the very services that go towards providing an infrastructure in our society. Of course Income Tax and other indirect taxes, or excises, or duties, provide other parts of infrastructure.
VED, (you know the one with EXCISE in the title), was known since it's inception as "road tax" as in those days most of it was indeed used for the upkeep of our roads. I entirely accept that latterly the money was not ring-fenced as became part of a general "pot" as are most taxes direct or otherwise in that National Insurance is not ringfenced for the NHS or pensions as it was originally designed for, so you can split hairs all you like but we all know VED has always been thought of as road tax, and indeed it is considered a "tax disc" if you care to look at the relevant gov website.

You obviously need some education regarding Council Tax. It is a paid as a CONTRIBUTION towards services locally. So the fact that you have extra locks on your windows, or never use leisure facilities is your choice. You still contribute towards the services as part of the community, hence its previous title of Community Charge.
I assume that you would expect a fire engine to come to your house should it catch fire, even though you may not ever use the service prior to or after the fire. Silly argument sir.

EVERONE uses the services provided by their Council indirectly, and in the case of Social Services, they provide the service of keeping some individuals off the streets or off drugs or drink that may otherwise have an impact on us all. Surely you understand what "indirectly" means. We do not all use the Police directly, but the precept we pay via council tax goes towards an indirect benefit.
I am sure you can contact your local council to get a list of what services you CONTRIBUTE towards, or read the literature they provide with your bill.

Tracy suggests an additional fee levied upon purchase of a bike over and above VAT and then the money ringfenced for cycle lanes. A reasonable suggestion. After all I pay VAT on a car when I buy it, and then pay VED on top, (and if you think that the emissons argument covers what is another tax, then you are very naive), but cyclists do not.

Your contention that patronage of a certain newspaper shows a level of eduction is utter nonsense and shows your ignorance and bigotry.
I contend that if understanding and intelligence were taxed you would certainly receive a rebate
Tracy was simply offering a suggestion, as is the want of these forums. She did not deserve the abuse and insult you offered.
The reasons we do not have similar infrastructure regasrding cycles in comparison to The Netherlands or Germany is that they have a much large land mass in proportion to population and so have the room to expand or provide such an infrastructure. This country does not. More and more people use the roads in whatever vehicle and so SOMETHING has to be done. We all contribute in other areas for using the same service or facility so it follows that we should ALL be part of the solution, cyclists and motorists alike.
It is not motorists alone that benefit from the roads, (even though they were built for cars.......DUH!), it is all road USERS. So..............you use something and benefit from it, so should contribute.
Simply insulting those that provide a suggestion is bullying and ignorant in view that you have not offered ONE solution, but want the world to know that you consider yourself so above the rest of us based on what you earn and pay out, and that this somehow makes your argument top too. On the contrary, it marks you as part of the problem.
Gooby.......... Yet more insults to pad the gaps. My point on spelling was that you were insulting another's intelligence, and yet you omit the application of the very intelligence you question in checking what you write. My point about your earnings was not in consideration in any way that I care or worry that you may or may not be a higher wage earner, but merely incredulity that you felt you had to tell us all what you earn in the first instance and show us that you are a in the higher tax bracket, as if this is somehow a indication that you are a better person. Clearly in your mind you are, even though everything you write contradicts that supposition. You even exacerbate and prove the point by adding that you pay for private healthcare and private education of your children. Both are utterly irrelevant to the matter in hand. As someone who has worked in the fields of tax, and local government, I can advise you that Council Tax provides the very services that go towards providing an infrastructure in our society. Of course Income Tax and other indirect taxes, or excises, or duties, provide other parts of infrastructure. VED, (you know the one with EXCISE in the title), was known since it's inception as "road tax" as in those days most of it was indeed used for the upkeep of our roads. I entirely accept that latterly the money was not ring-fenced as became part of a general "pot" as are most taxes direct or otherwise in that National Insurance is not ringfenced for the NHS or pensions as it was originally designed for, so you can split hairs all you like but we all know VED has always been thought of as road tax, and indeed it is considered a "tax disc" if you care to look at the relevant gov website. You obviously need some education regarding Council Tax. It is a paid as a CONTRIBUTION towards services locally. So the fact that you have extra locks on your windows, or never use leisure facilities is your choice. You still contribute towards the services as part of the community, hence its previous title of Community Charge. I assume that you would expect a fire engine to come to your house should it catch fire, even though you may not ever use the service prior to or after the fire. Silly argument sir. EVERONE uses the services provided by their Council indirectly, and in the case of Social Services, they provide the service of keeping some individuals off the streets or off drugs or drink that may otherwise have an impact on us all. Surely you understand what "indirectly" means. We do not all use the Police directly, but the precept we pay via council tax goes towards an indirect benefit. I am sure you can contact your local council to get a list of what services you CONTRIBUTE towards, or read the literature they provide with your bill. Tracy suggests an additional fee levied upon purchase of a bike over and above VAT and then the money ringfenced for cycle lanes. A reasonable suggestion. After all I pay VAT on a car when I buy it, and then pay VED on top, (and if you think that the emissons argument covers what is another tax, then you are very naive), but cyclists do not. Your contention that patronage of a certain newspaper shows a level of eduction is utter nonsense and shows your ignorance and bigotry. I contend that if understanding and intelligence were taxed you would certainly receive a rebate Tracy was simply offering a suggestion, as is the want of these forums. She did not deserve the abuse and insult you offered. The reasons we do not have similar infrastructure regasrding cycles in comparison to The Netherlands or Germany is that they have a much large land mass in proportion to population and so have the room to expand or provide such an infrastructure. This country does not. More and more people use the roads in whatever vehicle and so SOMETHING has to be done. We all contribute in other areas for using the same service or facility so it follows that we should ALL be part of the solution, cyclists and motorists alike. It is not motorists alone that benefit from the roads, (even though they were built for cars.......DUH!), it is all road USERS. So..............you use something and benefit from it, so should contribute. Simply insulting those that provide a suggestion is bullying and ignorant in view that you have not offered ONE solution, but want the world to know that you consider yourself so above the rest of us based on what you earn and pay out, and that this somehow makes your argument top too. On the contrary, it marks you as part of the problem. eunoia6
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Tue 19 Jul 11

Gooby says...

Please let me know who you work for in the tax arena because I wouldn’t want to waste my money in hiring them.

You lack of knowledge in an area that you work is stunning.

You can call the “tax disk” whatever you like it doesn’t make it true. It isn’t a hair to split, it isn’t a debatable point it is a FACT. Lets deal with some facts.
1) In order to legally drive your car on the road (amongst other things) you have to pay VED.
2) Vehicle Excise Duty is not “road Tax”, VED is a duty on the vehicles emissions
3) Funds raised from the VED is not spent on the roads, it goes into the central government pot and used to fund any projects seen fit to receive funds.
4) VED has not been called road tax since 1937 and in 1920 it stopped being a tax to fund the roads. This isn’t “current events”, it was voted on by Churchill.


It seems you have a problem with the amount you think I earn, that is your problem but due to the incoherent nature of your arguments, I have a good understanding why my directors value me. I have a problem because I pay a huge amount in tax and receive very little in return. Even with that complaint, I appreciate I am very lucky and I am not entitled to a rebate. Out of every penny I spend on myself, my family and for my employer I try to derive the best value. When I see the amount removed from my salary in tax and see the miniscule amount of value returned to me for that money and the huge amount of waste that our government make. That makes me angry. The suggestion that I should pay more tax for infrastructure I have already paid a tax for then I question why.

Motorists have a huge amount of resources and infrastructure at their disposal. There is no road tax levied against the motorist for this infrastructure. The infrastructure provided for cyclists is minimal and a cyclist pays as much for infrastructure as a motorist, sometimes more as many cyclists are motorists.

You have just pointed out you want an extra tax on the cyclist. This is contrary to the government policy. Policy across both Labor and Tory governments who are operating a cycle to work scheme. This government scheme sells cycles to employees in effect tax free. Free of tax at point of sale and before taxes are levied on your salary. This is to provide employees with low cost cycles to encourage cycle ownership and use. Being part of the solution as you put it, the solution has been (for the most part) decided. The solution is use of public transport and low emission transport such as cycling why do you think cars pay VED based on emissions and cyclists pay none?

You and Tracy m want a simple cycle tax at the point of purchase. The huge amount of ignorance persists and you seem to be content to stay ignorant.
1) UK Plc taxation does not “ring fence” taxes for specific purposes, all taxes are paid into a central funds then distributed into “ministry” budgets.
2) Government policy is to tax the cyclist LESS in order to promote cycle ownership and usage.
3) Why should a cyclist pay a specific tax for cycling infrastructure when no one else does.
4) Why should cyclists pay a specific cycling tax when their tax contributions are intended for cycling infrastructure that we do not receive.

You are so desperate to disagree with me that you have called Council Tax a “specific infrastructure tax”. .. and you claim you have worked in local government and taxation? You don’t understand how far wrong you are.

I am very specific when I say I do not use council funded social services. A fire engine is not social services, it is emergency services. The police are not a social service they are an emergency service. I think your definition the gardeners in the local park are social workers (they are not) The problem is that you don’t know what a social service is just for clarity here is the list ;

http://webarchive.na
tionalarchives.gov.u
k/+/www.direct.gov.u
k/en/hl1/help/social
services/index.htm

I do not use social services directly or indirectly and just for clarity I understand the meaning and use of the word “specific”

Here is the bottom line.
You and Tracy m want further point of sale taxation on cycles when;
1) This is against government policy
2) This is against taxation policy
3) It is against environmental policy
4) It is against department of health policy
5) It is morally wrong
6) Cyclists are already taxed

You are unable to differentiate between facts and the little ideas that formulate around your little mind. You are unable to see past half a statement or decision. You are so poorly informed it beggars belief. You are unable to understand the differences between social services and emergency services. You persist in willful ignorance as to what and how you pay tax. You are happy with your blissful ignorance as to how the government you pay for works.

I will be the first to admit I am a bigot – I am intolerant of the opinions of the ignorant and stupid. I freely admit to my shortcomings and acknowledge them. It was not an insult when I called you ignorant – it was a statement of fact.
Please let me know who you work for in the tax arena because I wouldn’t want to waste my money in hiring them. You lack of knowledge in an area that you work is stunning. You can call the “tax disk” whatever you like it doesn’t make it true. It isn’t a hair to split, it isn’t a debatable point it is a FACT. Lets deal with some facts. 1) In order to legally drive your car on the road (amongst other things) you have to pay VED. 2) Vehicle Excise Duty is not “road Tax”, VED is a duty on the vehicles emissions 3) Funds raised from the VED is not spent on the roads, it goes into the central government pot and used to fund any projects seen fit to receive funds. 4) VED has not been called road tax since 1937 and in 1920 it stopped being a tax to fund the roads. This isn’t “current events”, it was voted on by Churchill. It seems you have a problem with the amount you think I earn, that is your problem but due to the incoherent nature of your arguments, I have a good understanding why my directors value me. I have a problem because I pay a huge amount in tax and receive very little in return. Even with that complaint, I appreciate I am very lucky and I am not entitled to a rebate. Out of every penny I spend on myself, my family and for my employer I try to derive the best value. When I see the amount removed from my salary in tax and see the miniscule amount of value returned to me for that money and the huge amount of waste that our government make. That makes me angry. The suggestion that I should pay more tax for infrastructure I have already paid a tax for then I question why. Motorists have a huge amount of resources and infrastructure at their disposal. There is no road tax levied against the motorist for this infrastructure. The infrastructure provided for cyclists is minimal and a cyclist pays as much for infrastructure as a motorist, sometimes more as many cyclists are motorists. You have just pointed out you want an extra tax on the cyclist. This is contrary to the government policy. Policy across both Labor and Tory governments who are operating a cycle to work scheme. This government scheme sells cycles to employees in effect tax free. Free of tax at point of sale and before taxes are levied on your salary. This is to provide employees with low cost cycles to encourage cycle ownership and use. Being part of the solution as you put it, the solution has been (for the most part) decided. The solution is use of public transport and low emission transport such as cycling why do you think cars pay VED based on emissions and cyclists pay none? You and Tracy m want a simple cycle tax at the point of purchase. The huge amount of ignorance persists and you seem to be content to stay ignorant. 1) UK Plc taxation does not “ring fence” taxes for specific purposes, all taxes are paid into a central funds then distributed into “ministry” budgets. 2) Government policy is to tax the cyclist LESS in order to promote cycle ownership and usage. 3) Why should a cyclist pay a specific tax for cycling infrastructure when no one else does. 4) Why should cyclists pay a specific cycling tax when their tax contributions are intended for cycling infrastructure that we do not receive. You are so desperate to disagree with me that you have called Council Tax a “specific infrastructure tax”. .. and you claim you have worked in local government and taxation? You don’t understand how far wrong you are. I am very specific when I say I do not use council funded social services. A fire engine is not social services, it is emergency services. The police are not a social service they are an emergency service. I think your definition the gardeners in the local park are social workers (they are not) The problem is that you don’t know what a social service is just for clarity here is the list ; http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/+/www.direct.gov.u k/en/hl1/help/social services/index.htm I do not use social services directly or indirectly and just for clarity I understand the meaning and use of the word “specific” Here is the bottom line. You and Tracy m want further point of sale taxation on cycles when; 1) This is against government policy 2) This is against taxation policy 3) It is against environmental policy 4) It is against department of health policy 5) It is morally wrong 6) Cyclists are already taxed You are unable to differentiate between facts and the little ideas that formulate around your little mind. You are unable to see past half a statement or decision. You are so poorly informed it beggars belief. You are unable to understand the differences between social services and emergency services. You persist in willful ignorance as to what and how you pay tax. You are happy with your blissful ignorance as to how the government you pay for works. I will be the first to admit I am a bigot – I am intolerant of the opinions of the ignorant and stupid. I freely admit to my shortcomings and acknowledge them. It was not an insult when I called you ignorant – it was a statement of fact. Gooby
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Tue 19 Jul 11

eunoia6 says...

Gooby wrote:
Please let me know who you work for in the tax arena because I wouldn’t want to waste my money in hiring them.

You lack of knowledge in an area that you work is stunning.

You can call the “tax disk” whatever you like it doesn’t make it true. It isn’t a hair to split, it isn’t a debatable point it is a FACT. Lets deal with some facts.
1) In order to legally drive your car on the road (amongst other things) you have to pay VED.
2) Vehicle Excise Duty is not “road Tax”, VED is a duty on the vehicles emissions
3) Funds raised from the VED is not spent on the roads, it goes into the central government pot and used to fund any projects seen fit to receive funds.
4) VED has not been called road tax since 1937 and in 1920 it stopped being a tax to fund the roads. This isn’t “current events”, it was voted on by Churchill.


It seems you have a problem with the amount you think I earn, that is your problem but due to the incoherent nature of your arguments, I have a good understanding why my directors value me. I have a problem because I pay a huge amount in tax and receive very little in return. Even with that complaint, I appreciate I am very lucky and I am not entitled to a rebate. Out of every penny I spend on myself, my family and for my employer I try to derive the best value. When I see the amount removed from my salary in tax and see the miniscule amount of value returned to me for that money and the huge amount of waste that our government make. That makes me angry. The suggestion that I should pay more tax for infrastructure I have already paid a tax for then I question why.

Motorists have a huge amount of resources and infrastructure at their disposal. There is no road tax levied against the motorist for this infrastructure. The infrastructure provided for cyclists is minimal and a cyclist pays as much for infrastructure as a motorist, sometimes more as many cyclists are motorists.

You have just pointed out you want an extra tax on the cyclist. This is contrary to the government policy. Policy across both Labor and Tory governments who are operating a cycle to work scheme. This government scheme sells cycles to employees in effect tax free. Free of tax at point of sale and before taxes are levied on your salary. This is to provide employees with low cost cycles to encourage cycle ownership and use. Being part of the solution as you put it, the solution has been (for the most part) decided. The solution is use of public transport and low emission transport such as cycling why do you think cars pay VED based on emissions and cyclists pay none?

You and Tracy m want a simple cycle tax at the point of purchase. The huge amount of ignorance persists and you seem to be content to stay ignorant.
1) UK Plc taxation does not “ring fence” taxes for specific purposes, all taxes are paid into a central funds then distributed into “ministry” budgets.
2) Government policy is to tax the cyclist LESS in order to promote cycle ownership and usage.
3) Why should a cyclist pay a specific tax for cycling infrastructure when no one else does.
4) Why should cyclists pay a specific cycling tax when their tax contributions are intended for cycling infrastructure that we do not receive.

You are so desperate to disagree with me that you have called Council Tax a “specific infrastructure tax”. .. and you claim you have worked in local government and taxation? You don’t understand how far wrong you are.

I am very specific when I say I do not use council funded social services. A fire engine is not social services, it is emergency services. The police are not a social service they are an emergency service. I think your definition the gardeners in the local park are social workers (they are not) The problem is that you don’t know what a social service is just for clarity here is the list ;

http://webarchive.na

tionalarchives.gov.u

k/+/www.direct.gov.u

k/en/hl1/help/social

services/index.htm

I do not use social services directly or indirectly and just for clarity I understand the meaning and use of the word “specific”

Here is the bottom line.
You and Tracy m want further point of sale taxation on cycles when;
1) This is against government policy
2) This is against taxation policy
3) It is against environmental policy
4) It is against department of health policy
5) It is morally wrong
6) Cyclists are already taxed

You are unable to differentiate between facts and the little ideas that formulate around your little mind. You are unable to see past half a statement or decision. You are so poorly informed it beggars belief. You are unable to understand the differences between social services and emergency services. You persist in willful ignorance as to what and how you pay tax. You are happy with your blissful ignorance as to how the government you pay for works.

I will be the first to admit I am a bigot – I am intolerant of the opinions of the ignorant and stupid. I freely admit to my shortcomings and acknowledge them. It was not an insult when I called you ignorant – it was a statement of fact.
You admit to being a bigot. Enough said I think. Your post is inane and ignorant waffle brought on by blinkered bigoted views. Your council tax demand will show you that police and fire services form part of what you pay for. Your trouble is you expect a tailored service just for you alone, which reflects what a nasty person you are.
Taxes are our CONTRIBUTION towards many things, they are not a purchase where you get what you want. Foolish, ignorant bigoted man.
Your further posts will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
Good day
[quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: Please let me know who you work for in the tax arena because I wouldn’t want to waste my money in hiring them. You lack of knowledge in an area that you work is stunning. You can call the “tax disk” whatever you like it doesn’t make it true. It isn’t a hair to split, it isn’t a debatable point it is a FACT. Lets deal with some facts. 1) In order to legally drive your car on the road (amongst other things) you have to pay VED. 2) Vehicle Excise Duty is not “road Tax”, VED is a duty on the vehicles emissions 3) Funds raised from the VED is not spent on the roads, it goes into the central government pot and used to fund any projects seen fit to receive funds. 4) VED has not been called road tax since 1937 and in 1920 it stopped being a tax to fund the roads. This isn’t “current events”, it was voted on by Churchill. It seems you have a problem with the amount you think I earn, that is your problem but due to the incoherent nature of your arguments, I have a good understanding why my directors value me. I have a problem because I pay a huge amount in tax and receive very little in return. Even with that complaint, I appreciate I am very lucky and I am not entitled to a rebate. Out of every penny I spend on myself, my family and for my employer I try to derive the best value. When I see the amount removed from my salary in tax and see the miniscule amount of value returned to me for that money and the huge amount of waste that our government make. That makes me angry. The suggestion that I should pay more tax for infrastructure I have already paid a tax for then I question why. Motorists have a huge amount of resources and infrastructure at their disposal. There is no road tax levied against the motorist for this infrastructure. The infrastructure provided for cyclists is minimal and a cyclist pays as much for infrastructure as a motorist, sometimes more as many cyclists are motorists. You have just pointed out you want an extra tax on the cyclist. This is contrary to the government policy. Policy across both Labor and Tory governments who are operating a cycle to work scheme. This government scheme sells cycles to employees in effect tax free. Free of tax at point of sale and before taxes are levied on your salary. This is to provide employees with low cost cycles to encourage cycle ownership and use. Being part of the solution as you put it, the solution has been (for the most part) decided. The solution is use of public transport and low emission transport such as cycling why do you think cars pay VED based on emissions and cyclists pay none? You and Tracy m want a simple cycle tax at the point of purchase. The huge amount of ignorance persists and you seem to be content to stay ignorant. 1) UK Plc taxation does not “ring fence” taxes for specific purposes, all taxes are paid into a central funds then distributed into “ministry” budgets. 2) Government policy is to tax the cyclist LESS in order to promote cycle ownership and usage. 3) Why should a cyclist pay a specific tax for cycling infrastructure when no one else does. 4) Why should cyclists pay a specific cycling tax when their tax contributions are intended for cycling infrastructure that we do not receive. You are so desperate to disagree with me that you have called Council Tax a “specific infrastructure tax”. .. and you claim you have worked in local government and taxation? You don’t understand how far wrong you are. I am very specific when I say I do not use council funded social services. A fire engine is not social services, it is emergency services. The police are not a social service they are an emergency service. I think your definition the gardeners in the local park are social workers (they are not) The problem is that you don’t know what a social service is just for clarity here is the list ; http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/+/www.direct.gov.u k/en/hl1/help/social services/index.htm I do not use social services directly or indirectly and just for clarity I understand the meaning and use of the word “specific” Here is the bottom line. You and Tracy m want further point of sale taxation on cycles when; 1) This is against government policy 2) This is against taxation policy 3) It is against environmental policy 4) It is against department of health policy 5) It is morally wrong 6) Cyclists are already taxed You are unable to differentiate between facts and the little ideas that formulate around your little mind. You are unable to see past half a statement or decision. You are so poorly informed it beggars belief. You are unable to understand the differences between social services and emergency services. You persist in willful ignorance as to what and how you pay tax. You are happy with your blissful ignorance as to how the government you pay for works. I will be the first to admit I am a bigot – I am intolerant of the opinions of the ignorant and stupid. I freely admit to my shortcomings and acknowledge them. It was not an insult when I called you ignorant – it was a statement of fact.[/p][/quote]You admit to being a bigot. Enough said I think. Your post is inane and ignorant waffle brought on by blinkered bigoted views. Your council tax demand will show you that police and fire services form part of what you pay for. Your trouble is you expect a tailored service just for you alone, which reflects what a nasty person you are. Taxes are our CONTRIBUTION towards many things, they are not a purchase where you get what you want. Foolish, ignorant bigoted man. Your further posts will be treated with the contempt they deserve. Good day eunoia6
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Tue 19 Jul 11

Gooby says...

Are you a total idiot?
I think we have shown that I know what my taxes are and how they are spent. I realise the difference between an emergency service and a social service, I also know what my council tax pays for, do you? Your fundamental lack of comprehension over simple words like specific, social and emergency and total lack of understanding and expertise of an area in which you work is remarkable. You don’t seem to have specific knowledge over your chosen vocation. You don’t seem to have general knowledge with regards to your vocation or the govt you (presumably) voted for and the function of the services you pay for.

No - I don’t want to pay tax, if you do actually want to pay tax then you are very strange. I know the council will accept donations if you want to pay them any additional funds.

I find it particularly amusing that your inability to construct an argument leaves you indignant.

I would have a respect for you if you could put forward a decent argument in favor of your point that you want an extra tax for cyclists. Your moronic nit picking over un-debatable points of fact has left you contemptuous. Congratulations - I was there days ago!

Perhaps you will feel better when X-factor is back.

So Euonia perhaps now you have finished beating around the bush and procrastinating - why are you in favour of an extra tax for cyclists? This is the debate you have waded in on - lets hear it? We have had loads of build up, what is your point? How do you justify this?
Are you a total idiot? I think we have shown that I know what my taxes are and how they are spent. I realise the difference between an emergency service and a social service, I also know what my council tax pays for, do you? Your fundamental lack of comprehension over simple words like specific, social and emergency and total lack of understanding and expertise of an area in which you work is remarkable. You don’t seem to have specific knowledge over your chosen vocation. You don’t seem to have general knowledge with regards to your vocation or the govt you (presumably) voted for and the function of the services you pay for. No - I don’t want to pay tax, if you do actually want to pay tax then you are very strange. I know the council will accept donations if you want to pay them any additional funds. I find it particularly amusing that your inability to construct an argument leaves you indignant. I would have a respect for you if you could put forward a decent argument in favor of your point that you want an extra tax for cyclists. Your moronic nit picking over un-debatable points of fact has left you contemptuous. Congratulations - I was there days ago! Perhaps you will feel better when X-factor is back. So Euonia perhaps now you have finished beating around the bush and procrastinating - why are you in favour of an extra tax for cyclists? This is the debate you have waded in on - lets hear it? We have had loads of build up, what is your point? How do you justify this? Gooby
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Tue 19 Jul 11

tracy m says...

eunoia6 wrote:
Gooby wrote: Please let me know who you work for in the tax arena because I wouldn’t want to waste my money in hiring them. You lack of knowledge in an area that you work is stunning. You can call the “tax disk” whatever you like it doesn’t make it true. It isn’t a hair to split, it isn’t a debatable point it is a FACT. Lets deal with some facts. 1) In order to legally drive your car on the road (amongst other things) you have to pay VED. 2) Vehicle Excise Duty is not “road Tax”, VED is a duty on the vehicles emissions 3) Funds raised from the VED is not spent on the roads, it goes into the central government pot and used to fund any projects seen fit to receive funds. 4) VED has not been called road tax since 1937 and in 1920 it stopped being a tax to fund the roads. This isn’t “current events”, it was voted on by Churchill. It seems you have a problem with the amount you think I earn, that is your problem but due to the incoherent nature of your arguments, I have a good understanding why my directors value me. I have a problem because I pay a huge amount in tax and receive very little in return. Even with that complaint, I appreciate I am very lucky and I am not entitled to a rebate. Out of every penny I spend on myself, my family and for my employer I try to derive the best value. When I see the amount removed from my salary in tax and see the miniscule amount of value returned to me for that money and the huge amount of waste that our government make. That makes me angry. The suggestion that I should pay more tax for infrastructure I have already paid a tax for then I question why. Motorists have a huge amount of resources and infrastructure at their disposal. There is no road tax levied against the motorist for this infrastructure. The infrastructure provided for cyclists is minimal and a cyclist pays as much for infrastructure as a motorist, sometimes more as many cyclists are motorists. You have just pointed out you want an extra tax on the cyclist. This is contrary to the government policy. Policy across both Labor and Tory governments who are operating a cycle to work scheme. This government scheme sells cycles to employees in effect tax free. Free of tax at point of sale and before taxes are levied on your salary. This is to provide employees with low cost cycles to encourage cycle ownership and use. Being part of the solution as you put it, the solution has been (for the most part) decided. The solution is use of public transport and low emission transport such as cycling why do you think cars pay VED based on emissions and cyclists pay none? You and Tracy m want a simple cycle tax at the point of purchase. The huge amount of ignorance persists and you seem to be content to stay ignorant. 1) UK Plc taxation does not “ring fence” taxes for specific purposes, all taxes are paid into a central funds then distributed into “ministry” budgets. 2) Government policy is to tax the cyclist LESS in order to promote cycle ownership and usage. 3) Why should a cyclist pay a specific tax for cycling infrastructure when no one else does. 4) Why should cyclists pay a specific cycling tax when their tax contributions are intended for cycling infrastructure that we do not receive. You are so desperate to disagree with me that you have called Council Tax a “specific infrastructure tax”. .. and you claim you have worked in local government and taxation? You don’t understand how far wrong you are. I am very specific when I say I do not use council funded social services. A fire engine is not social services, it is emergency services. The police are not a social service they are an emergency service. I think your definition the gardeners in the local park are social workers (they are not) The problem is that you don’t know what a social service is just for clarity here is the list ; http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/+/www.direct.gov.u k/en/hl1/help/social services/index.htm I do not use social services directly or indirectly and just for clarity I understand the meaning and use of the word “specific” Here is the bottom line. You and Tracy m want further point of sale taxation on cycles when; 1) This is against government policy 2) This is against taxation policy 3) It is against environmental policy 4) It is against department of health policy 5) It is morally wrong 6) Cyclists are already taxed You are unable to differentiate between facts and the little ideas that formulate around your little mind. You are unable to see past half a statement or decision. You are so poorly informed it beggars belief. You are unable to understand the differences between social services and emergency services. You persist in willful ignorance as to what and how you pay tax. You are happy with your blissful ignorance as to how the government you pay for works. I will be the first to admit I am a bigot – I am intolerant of the opinions of the ignorant and stupid. I freely admit to my shortcomings and acknowledge them. It was not an insult when I called you ignorant – it was a statement of fact.
You admit to being a bigot. Enough said I think. Your post is inane and ignorant waffle brought on by blinkered bigoted views. Your council tax demand will show you that police and fire services form part of what you pay for. Your trouble is you expect a tailored service just for you alone, which reflects what a nasty person you are. Taxes are our CONTRIBUTION towards many things, they are not a purchase where you get what you want. Foolish, ignorant bigoted man. Your further posts will be treated with the contempt they deserve. Good day
Gooby - you are probably not be the only one on this site in the elite bracket but whatever advantage you may think you have over other bloggers your alleged wealth and success has done little to enhance any sign you possessing any good breeding or decorum.

It is impossible for you to debate without being insulting.

Your attitude does nothing to improve people's atitude towards cyclists.

I am also fed up with your crass intransigence and will in future ignore your responses.
[quote][p][bold]eunoia6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gooby[/bold] wrote: Please let me know who you work for in the tax arena because I wouldn’t want to waste my money in hiring them. You lack of knowledge in an area that you work is stunning. You can call the “tax disk” whatever you like it doesn’t make it true. It isn’t a hair to split, it isn’t a debatable point it is a FACT. Lets deal with some facts. 1) In order to legally drive your car on the road (amongst other things) you have to pay VED. 2) Vehicle Excise Duty is not “road Tax”, VED is a duty on the vehicles emissions 3) Funds raised from the VED is not spent on the roads, it goes into the central government pot and used to fund any projects seen fit to receive funds. 4) VED has not been called road tax since 1937 and in 1920 it stopped being a tax to fund the roads. This isn’t “current events”, it was voted on by Churchill. It seems you have a problem with the amount you think I earn, that is your problem but due to the incoherent nature of your arguments, I have a good understanding why my directors value me. I have a problem because I pay a huge amount in tax and receive very little in return. Even with that complaint, I appreciate I am very lucky and I am not entitled to a rebate. Out of every penny I spend on myself, my family and for my employer I try to derive the best value. When I see the amount removed from my salary in tax and see the miniscule amount of value returned to me for that money and the huge amount of waste that our government make. That makes me angry. The suggestion that I should pay more tax for infrastructure I have already paid a tax for then I question why. Motorists have a huge amount of resources and infrastructure at their disposal. There is no road tax levied against the motorist for this infrastructure. The infrastructure provided for cyclists is minimal and a cyclist pays as much for infrastructure as a motorist, sometimes more as many cyclists are motorists. You have just pointed out you want an extra tax on the cyclist. This is contrary to the government policy. Policy across both Labor and Tory governments who are operating a cycle to work scheme. This government scheme sells cycles to employees in effect tax free. Free of tax at point of sale and before taxes are levied on your salary. This is to provide employees with low cost cycles to encourage cycle ownership and use. Being part of the solution as you put it, the solution has been (for the most part) decided. The solution is use of public transport and low emission transport such as cycling why do you think cars pay VED based on emissions and cyclists pay none? You and Tracy m want a simple cycle tax at the point of purchase. The huge amount of ignorance persists and you seem to be content to stay ignorant. 1) UK Plc taxation does not “ring fence” taxes for specific purposes, all taxes are paid into a central funds then distributed into “ministry” budgets. 2) Government policy is to tax the cyclist LESS in order to promote cycle ownership and usage. 3) Why should a cyclist pay a specific tax for cycling infrastructure when no one else does. 4) Why should cyclists pay a specific cycling tax when their tax contributions are intended for cycling infrastructure that we do not receive. You are so desperate to disagree with me that you have called Council Tax a “specific infrastructure tax”. .. and you claim you have worked in local government and taxation? You don’t understand how far wrong you are. I am very specific when I say I do not use council funded social services. A fire engine is not social services, it is emergency services. The police are not a social service they are an emergency service. I think your definition the gardeners in the local park are social workers (they are not) The problem is that you don’t know what a social service is just for clarity here is the list ; http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/+/www.direct.gov.u k/en/hl1/help/social services/index.htm I do not use social services directly or indirectly and just for clarity I understand the meaning and use of the word “specific” Here is the bottom line. You and Tracy m want further point of sale taxation on cycles when; 1) This is against government policy 2) This is against taxation policy 3) It is against environmental policy 4) It is against department of health policy 5) It is morally wrong 6) Cyclists are already taxed You are unable to differentiate between facts and the little ideas that formulate around your little mind. You are unable to see past half a statement or decision. You are so poorly informed it beggars belief. You are unable to understand the differences between social services and emergency services. You persist in willful ignorance as to what and how you pay tax. You are happy with your blissful ignorance as to how the government you pay for works. I will be the first to admit I am a bigot – I am intolerant of the opinions of the ignorant and stupid. I freely admit to my shortcomings and acknowledge them. It was not an insult when I called you ignorant – it was a statement of fact.[/p][/quote]You admit to being a bigot. Enough said I think. Your post is inane and ignorant waffle brought on by blinkered bigoted views. Your council tax demand will show you that police and fire services form part of what you pay for. Your trouble is you expect a tailored service just for you alone, which reflects what a nasty person you are. Taxes are our CONTRIBUTION towards many things, they are not a purchase where you get what you want. Foolish, ignorant bigoted man. Your further posts will be treated with the contempt they deserve. Good day[/p][/quote]Gooby - you are probably not be the only one on this site in the elite bracket but whatever advantage you may think you have over other bloggers your alleged wealth and success has done little to enhance any sign you possessing any good breeding or decorum. It is impossible for you to debate without being insulting. Your attitude does nothing to improve people's atitude towards cyclists. I am also fed up with your crass intransigence and will in future ignore your responses. tracy m
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree